1 2026:CGHC:5549 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 607 of 2024 Smt. Nisha Sahu W/o Durgesh Sahu, D/o Dilesh Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Khaira, House No. 212, Ward No. 16, Bajrang Mohalla Khaira, Tahsil And Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant( versus Durgesh Sahu S/o Shri Rajanram Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Beltikari Basahat, Police Station - Dipka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattigarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.03.2024 passed by learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.107/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the non-applicant/respondent. It was pleaded that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 09.12.2020 and, soon after the marriage, the respondent and his family members started subjecting the applicant to mental and physical cruelty, including demands for dowry, abuse, and assault. Despite the applicant’s family having given gifts according to their capacity, the harassment allegedly intensified. It was further alleged that the brother of the respondent had evil intentions towards the applicant and pressurized her to establish illicit relations. The applicant also stated that she was branded as a “Tonhi” by the respondent’s family and, on 08.01.2022, overheard a conspiracy to kill her by poisoning, due to which she informed her parents and left the matrimonial home on 09.01.2022 to reside at her parental house. In support of her case, the applicant and her mother adduced evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. The respondent remained ex parte despite service. After considering the applicant’s pleadings and evidence, the learned Family Court, by order dated 3 23.03.2024, awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the applicant, which order is now under challenge in the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court committed a grave illegality in failing to consider that the respondent–husband is earning approximately Rs.32,000/- per month, and in spite of such income, the award of only Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance is grossly inadequate, arbitrary, and contrary to settled principles of law. He further submits that the learned Family Court further erred in law by not awarding a reasonable and proportionate amount of maintenance, as ordinarily at least 25% of the husband’s monthly income ought to have been considered while determining the maintenance payable to the applicant. He also submits that the impugned order granting maintenance of merely Rs.2,000/- per month, despite the respondent’s substantial earning capacity, reflects non-application of judicial mind and thus suffers from material illegality warranting interference by this Court. 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 has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance 4 observing that the marital relationship between the parties stands proved, the applicant was subjected to cruelty and compelled to live separately without any fault on her part, and the respondent, being a healthy able-bodied person, is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife, even though no documentary proof of his income was produced. Therefore, the Family Court granted maintenance to the applicant as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 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