1 2026:CGHC:5546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 622 of 2024 Dilip Rajput S/o Shri Bharat Rajput, Aged About 30 Years R/o Munda Devri, Police Station And Tahsil - Patharia, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Parmeshwari Verma W/o Dilip Rajput, Aged About 25 Years Caste - Rajput, R/o Village - Munda Devri, Police Station And Tahsil - Patharia, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Irrigation Department, Darri, Police Station - Darri, Tahsil - Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. Heard Ms. Nirupama Bajbai, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the non- applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.01.2019, the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance before the learned Family Court concerned, stating that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 27.04.2016 and that after the marriage, she went to the matrimonial home to discharge her marital obligations; however, after some time, the applicant and his family members allegedly subjected her to cruelty in connection with demands for dowry and after about three months of marriage, the applicant left her at her brother’s house and has not taken her back since then, as a result of which she has been residing at her parental home and the applicant has not paid a single penny towards her maintenance, compelling her to file the said application. 4. Upon service of notice, the applicant filed a reply denying all allegations of cruelty and dowry demand and submitted that the non-applicant avoided household work and pressurized him to live separately from his parents and upon his refusal, she herself left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause, he further contended that he made several efforts to bring her back but she refused, that she is well educated, has completed a D.C.A. course, runs a beauty parlour and works in a private school and is therefore capable of maintaining herself, whereas he is unemployed with no permanent source of income, and since she is residing separately without 3 sufÏcient reason, she is not entitled to maintenance and her application deserves dismissal. 5. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicant and vide impugned order dated 30.04.2024, passed the order, directed the applicant to pay ₹3,000/- per month to the non-applicant towards maintenance from the date of application, i.e., 09.01.2019 and further directed to pay Rs. 1000/- for litigation expenses. Hence, the present revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 is illegal, perverse, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and law and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Family Court committed a grave error in directing payment of ₹3,000/- per month to the non-applicant from the date of application, i.e., 09.01.2019, without appreciating that the delay in disposal of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not attributable to the applicant and that he had been regularly paying interim maintenance during the pendency of the case. It is further submitted that the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand are false and that, after marriage, the non-applicant avoided household responsibilities and pressurized the applicant to live separately from his parents; upon his refusal, she left the matrimonial home on her own and has been residing at her parental house without reasonable cause, despite several efforts made by the applicant to bring her back. Learned counsel also submits that the non-applicant is well educated, has completed a D.C.A. course, runs a beauty parlour and works in a private school and is thus capable of 4 maintaining herself, whereas the applicant is unemployed and has no permanent source of income. It is further argued that the non- applicant had also initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which the applicant has been acquitted, which aspect was not properly considered. According to the applicant, maintenance, if any, ought to have been awarded from the date of order and not from the date of application; the quantum awarded is on the higher side considering his financial condition, and the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and documents on record, resulting in an unsustainable and baseless conclusion, as the benefit under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be claimed as a matter of right in the facts of the present case. Thus 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 learned Family Court concerned 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 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 the Cr.P.C.. The Family Court concerned had 5 awarded a maintenance amount of ₹3000/- per month to the non- applicant/wife from the date of filing of application. 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. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal