1 2026:CGHC:7417 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 682 of 2022 Rupesh Das S/o Garibdas Manikpuri Aged About 30 Years R/o Basantpur, Leprosy Hospital, Gali No. 2, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Kamini Manikpuri W/o Rupesh Ds Manikpuri, Aged About 30 Years R/o Punjabi Mohalla, New Khursipar Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anirrudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set-aside the order dated 26.02.2022 passed by the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Court of learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 1065/2016, in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant had filed an application under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court mentioning in it that the marriage was solemnized on 01.05.2015 according to Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged that after marriage the non-applicant came to her matrimonial house which is at Basantpur Rajnandgaon, soon thereafter the non-applicant was subjected to harassment by the applicant and his family members. The applicant used to assault the non-applicant for bringing less dowry. It was also alleged in the application filed by the non-applicant that the applicant used to demand money, so that he could buy property in the name of the non-applicant. It has been further pleaded that the applicant who had earlier taken a loan of Rs. 40000/- from his sister used to harass the non-applicant for repaying the same. The applicant also used filthy language and used to abuse her. The non-applicant due to the said behaviour of her husband and her in laws filed a written report before the Mahila thana Durg on 11.06.2016 and a counseling was done and the matter was settled between them. It was further alleged that soon after the counseling was done, the applicant again started harassing her due to which she was left with no other option and ultimately she went to her parents house. Thereafter, due to lack of financial hardships, she filed an 3 application before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance. 4. The applicant herein filed the reply denied all the allegation leveled against him and it has been specifically pleaded that the applicant respects and takes care of his wife and he belongs to a poor family on the other hand the non-applicant used to harass him and pressurized him to live alone and away from his family member. It was further submitted that the non-applicant used to threaten the applicant of falsely implicated him in a domestic violence case and further used to threaten that she will send the entire family of the applicant behind bars. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of her application in the interest of justice. 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned family Court decided the matter whereby partly allowed the application filed by the wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife from the date of filing of application. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, and based on no reliable evidence and therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and documents available on record and passed the order without due application of mind. It has not been considered that the applicant is merely working as a Data Entry Operator and is earning only a meagre salary of Rs. 5,772/- per month, and thus is not financially capable of paying a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as 4 maintenance. The learned Family Court further failed to consider that the applicant has additional financial responsibilities, including bearing the medical expenses of his sister who is suffering from breast cancer. On the other hand, the material on record indicating that the non-applicant is running coaching classes at Khursipar, Bhilai and earning approximately Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month has not been properly appreciated. The learned Family Court erred in ignoring these material aspects and mechanically granted maintenance, despite the applicant’s limited income and financial hardship. The amount awarded is excessive and beyond the paying capacity of the applicant. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Family Court concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹3000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife from the date of filing of application. 5 While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal