1 2025:CGHC:7579 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 205 of 2025 1 - Smt. Bharti Sahu W/o Permeshwar Sahu Aged About 23 Years D/o Mahadev Sahu, R/o House No. 165, Ward No. 13, 15 Block, Jharnapara, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village Birra, P.S. Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Parmeshwar Sahu S/o Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 30 Years Occupation Bhartiya Sainik, R/o House No. 165, Ward No. 13, 15 Block, Jharnapara Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh At Present Siligudi, West Bengal. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Nilu Kumari Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 12/02/2025 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned 2 Additional Principal Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 261/2023, whereby the Family Court has granted interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the applicant, hence this revision is being filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the marriage of the applicant and non- applicant took place on 21.04.2022 as per the Hindu customs. The non-applicant resided about 15-20 days with the applicant and thereafter the non-applicant went on his duty. The non-applicant came on 22.10.2022 and resided with the applicant around 20 days. Again, on 11.02.2023 came on leave and on provocation of mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law, the non-applicant committed marpit with the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that while granting amount of maintenance, the learned Family Court has not considered the income of non-applicant properly and granted less maintenance to the applicant. The non-applicant is a soldier in the Indian Army and is receiving Rs. 75,000/- per month. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicants and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/- per month. 3 6. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that applicant/wife has no high source of income, she is residing in her parental home is struggling to support herself, hence, the Family Court granted the maintenance to the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC, non-applicant is husband of applicant and has to pay the said maintenance amount. Therefore, considering facts of the case and looking to the the price index which is prevailing in the society and hike in value of the commodities and nature of job of the respondent, it is directed that the respondent shall pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the applicant instead of Rs.7,000/-. 7. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed and stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima