1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 338 of 2026 Sunil Kumar Patel S/o Narayan Prasad Patel Aged About 27 Years R/o Ghatadwari P.S. Urga, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) ... applicant (s) versus Smt. Priyanka Shrivas W/o Sunil Kumar Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Ghatadwari P.S. Urga, Distt.- Korba, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For applicant (s) : Ms. Pooja Loniya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 09.03.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the order dated 22.11.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Principle Judge, Family Court, Janjgir Champa, whereby the learned Family court has granted maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that, in the year 2020-21, the applicant and non-applicant having love affair and thereafter on 24.02.2024, the present respondent lodged a report against the applicant with the allegation that she was subjected to rape by the applicant on the pretext of marriage and now, the applicant evading marriage with her. Thereafter, on 15.05.2024, both of them have married at Arya Samaj Sanskar Seva Samiti, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur. After their marriage, the applicant took her to his house at Ghatadwari and she started residing there. As and when, the applicant was extended the benefit of bail, he again started misbehaving her and then, the present respondent again made a complaint on 24.07.2024 at Police Station Urga. In that complaint also in the conciliation proceeding, compromise was taken place between the parties, yet, the behaviour of the applicant was not corrected and again started marpeet with the present respondent. She again made a complaint to the Police through dial 112 and thereafter, she was sent to along with her parents and since then, she was residing with her parents. She made an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of monthly maintenance with the averment that the present applicant is working as guest teacher at Higher Secondary School, Pharaswani and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and also earning by working of Awasmitra, at Gram Panchayat Nawapara and Pakariya and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The present applicant is having 6 acre of agricultural land at Village Ghatadwari from which he is earning 3-4 lakhs per year, therefore, she claimed Rs. 10,000/- per month as monthly maintenance amount. 3 3. The applicant replied the application of the present respondent and denied the allegation and avert that he has been sent in jail in the false case of rape allegedly lodged by the present respondent. The applicant was a contract teacher and due to detain in jail on the false report of the present respondent, he is removed from his service and presently he is unemployed. The present respondent is presently working at Honda Activa Showroom and also earning from beauty parlour and mehandi art. She is also benefiting by the scheme of Mahtari Vandan Yojna and therefore, her application is liable to be rejected. 4. After hearing the parties, learned Family Court has partly allowed the application filed by the respondent and granted Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance which is payable from the date of the order i.e. 22.11.2025. The order is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned judgment without properly appreciating the facts and evidence available on record and has committed grave illegality in allowing the claim of maintenance in favour of the respondent. The learned Court below failed to frame and adjudicate the vital issue as to whether the respondent was legally wedded wife of applicant and had sufficient and reasonable cause to live separately from the applicant, which goes to the root of the matter. The learned Family Court also failed to consider that the applicant had lost his job as a consequence of the false FIR lodged by the respondent, which fact was specifically brought on record before the learned Family Court. Despite the financial hardship of the applicant, the learned Court presumed his earning capacity merely on the ground that he is a young person without 4 any physical or mental disability, without there being any evidence regarding his actual income. Further, the learned Family Court ignored the material fact that the respondent is a well-qualified lady who has completed a PGDCA course, is pursuing law, and is also working at a Honda Activa showroom as well as running a parlour, thereby having sufficient means to maintain herself. The learned Court also failed to take into consideration that the applicant is burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents and other family members, including his brother who is suffering from failure of both kidneys and is undergoing dialysis. Therefore, the impugned order granting maintenance to the respondent is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. The applicant craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to raise any other permissible grounds at the time of hearing. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned judgment on record. 7. The primary object of the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to give social justice to women and children, and infirm parents, to prevent destitution and vagrancy. It provides a speedy remedy to those women, children and parents who are in distress and a helpless condition. In the matter of Anju Garg and Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC Online SC 1314 has held in para 9 that:- "9. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan 5 Singh v. Meena and Ors. MANU/SC/0605/2014: (2015) 6 SCC 353 This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [MANU/SC/0420/1987 (1987) 1 SCC 624: 1987 SCC (Cri.) 237] the Court opined that. (SCC p. 631, para 16) 16. Proceedings Under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner. 8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) V Veeraswamy (K.) [MANU/SC/0719/1991. (1991) 2 SCC 375: 1991 SCC (Cri.) 442], while discussing about the basic purpose Under Section 125 of the Code, opined that: (SCC p. 378, para 3) 3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife. 9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v State of Gujarat (MANU/SC/1159/1996 (1996) 4 SCC 479 1996 SCC (Cri) 762), while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that (SCC p. 489, para 15) 15.... While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, 6 etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress. destitution and starvation. 10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [MANU/SC/8286/2007: (2008) 2 SCC 316: (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 (2008) 1 SCC (Cri.) 356), reiterating the legal position the Court held: (SCC p. 320, para 6) 6.... Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [MANU/SC/0067/1978: (1978) 4 SCC 70: 1978 SCC (Cri.) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben State Gujarat 7 [Somabhai Bhatiya MANU/SC/0193/2005: (2005) 3 SCC 636: 2005 SCC (Cri.) 787). V of 11. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [ MANU/SC/0248/2013: (2014) 14 SCC 452: (2015) 1 SCC (Cri.) 407: (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346), it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children. 8. In the matter of "Rajnesh v. Neha", 2021 (2) SCC 324, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. In para 77 to 85, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment held that- 77. The objective of granting interim / permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded 78. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified, whether the applicant has any independent source of income, whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home, whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage, whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage: whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family, reasonable costs of litigation for a non- working wife [Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7: Refer to Vinny Paramvir Parmar v Paramvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112 (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290) 8 79. In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain ((2017) 15 SCC 801: (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. 80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications [Reema Salkan v Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12 SCC 303 (2018) 5 SCC (CIV) 596: (2019) 4 SCC (Cr) 339) 81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home 36 The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes Le maintenance awarded to the wife 9 should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort 82. Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration: (i) position and status of the parties. (i) reasonable wants of the claimant, (ii) if the applicant/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, (v) income from claimant's own earning or from any other source. 83. Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and/or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. 84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v Smt. Saroj Hegde (2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 (2007) 140 DLT 16] laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance: (SCC OnLine Del para 8) "1. Status of the parties. 2. Reasonable wants of the claimant 3. The independent income and property of the claimant. 4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain. 5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. 6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any. 10 7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant. 8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant. 9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed. 10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation 11. The amount awarded u/s 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/ 24 of the Act. 17." 85. Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove. certain additional factors would also be relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance payable." 9. In the present case while considering the status of the present respondent and detaining the issue no. 1, as considered that both the parties were having love affair and they performed marriage at Arya Samaj Sanskar Seva Samiti, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur on 15.05.2024 and thereafter, they were residing together as husband and wife. While staying at her matrimonial house, the present respondent was being harassed by the applicant and he used to bit her. In the complaint made by the present respondent to the Police, there was a compromise between the parties and thus, from the consideration of the learned Family Court, it is quite vivid that as a fall out of their love affair, they performed marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir and their status would become the husband and wife. Since, the respondent/wife was subjected to harassment and assault by the applicant, she used to reside with her parents and therefore, she filed the application for grant of monthly maintenance. The learned Family Court after adverting entire aspect of the evidence produced by the 11 parties, partly allowed the application filed by the present respondent and awarded monthly maintenance to her. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the learned Family Court has duly considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties before granting maintenance to the respondent. The amount of maintenance awarded is only Rs.3,000/- per month, which cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. The learned Family Court has rightly observed that the applicant is an able-bodied person and is capable of earning and maintaining the respondent. 11. At this stage, no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The contentions raised by the applicant relate to disputed questions of fact which have already been considered by the learned Court below. 12. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.03.18 10:35:38 +0530