1 2026:CGHC:5554 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 568 of 2024 Vimal Haldar @ Vijay Kumar S/o Late Shri B.N. Haldar Aged About 55 Years Office Address Senior Section Engineering O.H.E. P.S.I. South Eastern Central Railway, P.S. Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus Smt. Geetanjali Haldar W/o Vimal Haldar Aged About 51 Years R/o Hemu Nagar, Rail Line Road, Behind Shiv Mandir, Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRR No. 827 of 2024 Smt. Geetanjali Haldar W/o. Vimal Haldar Aged About 51 Years R/o. Hemu-Nagar, Rail Line Road, Behind Shiv Temple, Torwa, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Applicant(s) Versus 2 Vimal Haldar @ Vijay Kumar S/o. Late B.N. Haldar Aged About 55 Years Address Office Of Senior Section Engineering, O.H.E, P.I.S., South Eastern Central Railway, P.S. - Torwa, Tehsil - Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Applicant in CRR No.568/2024 : Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent in CRR No.568/2024 : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate. And For Applicant in CRR No.827/2024 : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent in CRR No.827/2024 : Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31/01/2026 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. Geetanjali Haldar. The learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.), passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 640/2023, vide order dated 04.05.2024, granted a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- to the wife. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revisions. The wife filed 3 Criminal Revision No. 827/2024, 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 filed Criminal Revision No. 568/2024, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced. 3. Prosecution story in brief, the applicant (husband) and the respondent (wife) are legally wedded spouses, whose marriage was solemnized on 22.11.1992 at Arya Samaj Mandir, and two children were born out of the wedlock. The marital relationship remained cordial for about ten years, thereafter the applicant (husband) started subjecting the respondent (wife) to mental and physical cruelty and developed illicit relationships with other women. After the unfortunate death of their son in the year 2020, the conduct of the applicant (husband) further deteriorated, and he continued his extramarital affairs, abused and assaulted the respondent (wife) and their daughter, and ultimately forcibly ousted them from the matrimonial home on 15.03.2022, leaving the respondent (wife) without any source of livelihood. The applicant (husband) is employed as a Senior Technician Grade-I in South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur, earning approximately Rs. 70,000/- per month, yet despite having sufficient means, he neglected and refused to maintain the respondent (wife). Consequently, the respondent (wife) was constrained to file an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded maintenance of Rs. 4 12,000/- per month in favour of the respondent (wife), which order is under challenge by the parties, resulting in the present criminal revision petitions. 4. Mr. Sourav Agrawal, learned counsel for the husband submits that the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 (Annexure A-13) is contrary to the facts on record and settled principles of law, and therefore deserves to be set aside, making the present revision liable to be allowed. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the pleadings, evidence, and material placed on record while granting maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. He further submits that it was specifically pleaded and consistently contended by the applicant (husband) that the respondent (wife) had voluntarily left the matrimonial home of her own free will and despite repeated willingness expressed by the applicant to keep and maintain her, the respondent adamantly refused to reside with him. In such circumstances, the respondent is not entitled to maintenance, particularly when she is earning approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month by running a boutique, a material fact which has not been duly considered by the learned Family Court. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, despite the applicant having filed a sworn affidavit disclosing his actual income and liabilities. The quantum of maintenance awarded is thus arbitrary, excessive, and legally unsustainable, and the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. appears 5 to have been filed only to harass the applicant and his family members, rendering the impugned order liable to be quashed. 5. Mr. Rohit Sharma, leaned counsel for the wife submits that the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 640/2022, awarding maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month, is bad in law, contrary to the material on record, and passed without proper appreciation of evidence. The learned Court below failed to consider the settled legal principles governing fixation of maintenance and thus committed a serious error in determining an inadequate quantum. He further submits that the respondent (husband) subjected the applicant (wife) and their daughter to continuous harassment, humiliation, and cruelty, and ultimately forcibly ousted them from the matrimonial home on 15.03.2022, rendering the applicant completely dependent upon her daughter for survival. The applicant is a homemaker with no independent source of income, whereas the respondent is working as a Senior Technician Grade-I in South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur, earning approximately Rs. 70,000/- per month, and is legally bound to maintain the applicant in accordance with his income, status, and standard of living. He also submits that the applicant is about 51 years of age and is suffering from serious medical ailments, and the maintenance awarded is grossly insufficient even to meet her basic living and medical expenses, compelling her to discontinue medical treatment. The learned Family Court failed to consider the financial capacity, lifestyle, and earning potential of the 6 respondent, and although sufficient facts and evidence were available on record to award maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month, no cogent reasons were assigned for granting a lesser amount, rendering the impugned order arbitrary and liable to be modified by enhancing the maintenance as prayed for. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.), passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 640/2023, vide order dated 04.05.2024, granted a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- to the wife, holding that the marital relationship between the parties is admitted, the wife had sufficient and justifiable cause to live separately on account of cruelty and illicit relationship of the husband, the wife is unable to maintain herself, and the husband, being employed in the Railway Department and earning sufficient income, is capable of maintaining her, and consequently held the wife entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 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. 5000/- per month to the wife, I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7 9. For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. 10. 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 Akhil