1 2025:CGHC:32636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 30 of 2021 Praveen Kumar Sahu S/o Dharmraj Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Hirapur, Post Admabad, Tehsil And District Balod (Chhattisgarh), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant(s) versus Smt. Nainbai Sahu W/o Praveen Kumar Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Chiraigodi, Post Jamgaon, Tehsil And District Balod (Chhattisgarh), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRR No. 156 of 2021 Smt. Nain Bai Sahu W/o Praveen Kumar Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Chiraigodi, Post Jamgaon, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh --Applicant(s) Versus Praveen Kumar Sahu S/o Dharmraj Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Hirapur, Post Admabad, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant in CRR No.30/2021 and Respondent in CRR No.156/2021 : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate. For Respondent in CRR No.30./2021 and Applicant in CRR No.156/2021 : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14/07/2025 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been filed against the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In the present case, an application for maintenance was filed on behalf of the wife, Smt. Nain Bai. The learned Family Court, Balod, District Balod, vide order dated 16.03.2020, granted a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- to the wife, Smt. Nain Bai. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Nain Bai, filed Criminal Revision No. 156/2021, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living, hence it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Praveen Kumar Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 30/2021, for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2020. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that the wife alleges that after marriage, the husband and his family members initially treated her well. However, she later discovered that the information provided about the husband’s education and land ownership was false. When she complained about this, the husband and his family members changed their behavior towards her and started harassing her. They would taunt her about not bringing sufficient dowry, abuse her and her parents, and the husband would physically assault her. They would also call her barren because she couldn't conceive, despite medical tests revealing that the husband had physical weaknesses. 3 When the wife’s health deteriorated, the husband refused to provide her with proper medical treatment and food. There were two social meetings to resolve the issue, where the husbnad was found guilty and promised not to repeat his mistakes. However, the husband continued to mistreat her, and on 16.05.2018, he physically assaulted her and threw her out of the house. Since then, the wife has been living separately with her parents, fearing for her safety. The wife claims that she is unable to maintain herself and is dependent on her parents. She requests maintenance from the husband, who earns a monthly income of Rs.25,000/- as a driver. The wife seeks Rs.10,000 per month for her sustenance and well- being. Thereafter, the husband reply denied the allegations and claims of the wife. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to wife towards maintenance. 4. Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned counsel appearing for husband Praveen Kumar Sahu submits that there is no evidence. The wife has not examined any witnesses or produced documents to support her allegations of cruelty and dowry demands, further the husband has proved that the wife left the matrimonial home without just and sufficient cause. Moreover, the husband has demonstrated willingness to keep the wife with him, while the wife has shown unwillingness to live with the husband. The exhibits filed by the applicant support this fact. He further submits that the wife developed a dislike for the husband due to his lack of educational qualifications. The husband’s income is limited, as he works as a 4 driver on an opportunity basis and does not own a vehicle. In contrast, the wife earns more than the husband and is capable of maintaining herself. Furthermore, the court notes that the applicant has treated the respondent well, while the respondent has ill-treated the applicant, often shouting at him due to his lower educational qualifications. The respondent eventually left the applicant on her own accord. Hence, the Court committed error in granted maintenance to the wife. 5. Per contra, Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for wife Smt. Nain Bai submits that the maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- per month awarded by the Family Court is insufficient for her survival. Given the high cost of living and inflation, this amount does not meet her basic needs. As a housewife unable to work outside or engage in any business, she relies entirely on her husband for financial support. He further submits that the wife emphasizes that the husband, is a driver of a 12-wheeler trailer and earns Rs.25,000/- per month. He is legally obligated to maintain her, especially since she is living with her parents due to his ill-treatment and cruelty. The wife is currently dependent on her father for daily expenses and medical treatment. He also submits that the Family Court should have considered the husbands's income and standard of living when determining the maintenance amount. Given his financial capacity, the Court should have awarded a more substantial amount to ensure the wife’s well-being. The wife contends that Rs.2,000 per month is an inadequate amount for survival in today's economic scenario, and the Court should reconsider the maintenance amount accordingly. 5 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the wife before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance and after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 16.03.2020, wherein the husband was directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month towards maintenance to wife observing the evidence presented in the case, it is clear that the husband has not made any arrangements for the maintenance of the wife, who is entitled to receive maintenance from him as his wife. The evidence also reveals that the wife has sufficient grounds to live separately from the husband and is unable to maintain herself. Regarding the maintenance amount, the wife has stated that the husband is a healthy person and works as a vehicle driver. However, she has not provided proof that the husband earns Rs.25,000/- per month. After considering the evidence, the nature of the husband’s work, and the current circumstances of the case, the Family Court concluded that the wife is entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- from the husband. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revisions and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the wife. I am of the considered view that 6 the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. For the foregoing reasons, both the criminal revisions stand dismissed. 10. A copy of this order be sent to learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil