1 2026:CGHC:11427 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 347 of 2026 Mukesh Kumar Verma S/o Ramnivas Verma Aged About 32 Years Permanent Address- Sheetla Para, Morid, Post Dundera, Police Station- Utai, Tehsil And District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Jyoti Verma W/o Mukesh Kumar Verma Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Sheetla Para, Morid, Post Dundera, Police Station- Utai, Tehsil And District- Durg (Chhattisgarh), Present Address- Shri Kamal Narayan Verma, Sai Nagar, Urla, Ward No. 58, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10 /03/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by learned 3rd Additional Principal 2 Judge Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.1425/2023, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent were married on 08.12.2018 at Uria, District Durg (C.G.) according to Hindu customs and rituals. After the marriage, the respondent alleged that the applicant and his family members started harassing her physically and mentally on account of dowry and also taunted her regarding household work. It is further alleged that when the in-laws demanded rent for allowing her to stay in the matrimonial house, she gave her jewellery to them and did not lodge any complaint at that time hoping that their behaviour would improve. On 19.11.2022, the applicant and his family members allegedly brought the respondent to her parental house at Sai Nagar, Urla and left her there. Thereafter, on 04.01.2023, she received a call from the Women’s Commission, Raipur informing that the applicant’s mother had filed a complaint against her father, due to which her father appeared before the Commission. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming that she was subjected to harassment and assault for dowry and sought maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. The applicant filed his reply denying the 3 allegations. However, the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, after recording the evidence and pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 22.01.2026 allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent, which according to the applicant is illegal and contrary to law, therefore the present revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence and documents available on record. The Learned Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case while granting maintenance to the respondent. He further submits that the applicant is already under a legal obligation to pay Rs.18,000/- per month to his elderly parents as per the order passed by the Family Court, Raipur. Further, the applicant is pursuing B.Tech, which requires an annual expenditure of about Rs.50,000/- for maintaining his employment and future prospects. In view of these financial liabilities, the additional maintenance awarded to the respondent imposes an excessive and unsustainable financial burden upon the applicant. He also submits that the learned Court failed to consider that the respondent is a B.Com graduate and has admitted in her cross-examination that she had previously worked as an Exam Invigilator earning about Rs.15,000/- per month. The Court also ignored that the respondent is receiving financial 4 assistance under the Mahtari Vandan Yojana from the State Government. Thus, the Learned Court failed to apply the settled principle that a qualified and capable spouse should not remain idle solely to claim maintenance from the other spouse. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance holding that the respondent has sufficient and justifiable reason to live separately from the applicant as the respondent was always willing to reside with the applicant and had even obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, however the applicant failed to make efforts to bring her back to the matrimonial home. The Court further held that the applicant is employed as an Assistant Manager in Bhushan Steel Plant and is earning a regular income, therefore it is his legal as well as moral duty to maintain his wife according to his financial capacity. Considering the income of the applicant, the circumstances of the parties, and the needs of the respondent, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance to the applicant as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 5 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil