1 2026:CGHC:5562 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 500 of 2024 Smt. Deepak Markam W/o Domar Singh Markam Aged About 50 Years Caste Gond, R/o Tandula Block G-02 Government Quarter Balod P.S. And Tah. Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Domar Singh Markam S/o Shri Jait Ram Markam Aged About 55 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Post Limora P.S. And Tahsil, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh … Respondent For applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the applicant seeking following prayer:- “It therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be passed to allow this revision petition and further be pleased to enhance the maintenance amount passed by learned Family Court Balod (C.G.) in MJC No. 171/2023, parties between "Smt. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.02 11:17:03 +0530 2 Deepak Markam Vs. Domar Singh Markam" in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking grant of maintenance, stating therein that the respondent had neglected and refused to maintain her, and therefore prayed that the respondent be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. Pursuant to the said application, the learned Family Court issued notice to the respondent/non-applicant. 4. After service of notice, the respondent filed his reply to the main application as well as a reply to the interim maintenance application before the learned Family Court. 5. Despite the existence of the above facts, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order dated 23.03.2024. 6. By the said impugned order, the learned Family Court granted only Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant, ignoring the fact that the husband of the applicant is earning a salary of Rs. 60,000/- per month. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 23.03.2024 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, erroneous, illegal, and contrary to the evidence available on record. Hence, the order passed by the learned Family Court deserves to be modified, and the maintenance amount be enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- per month in favour of the applicant. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate and apply the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is most respectfully submitted that the applicant is living separately for sufÏcient and justifiable reasons. He further submits that the learned trial Court ignored the material fact 3 that the respondent has not filed any application for restitution of conjugal rights for resuming cohabitation and has shown no interest in leading a happy matrimonial life with the applicant. He also submits that the learned Family Court ignored the salary certificate of the respondent, which was duly filed and exhibited before the trial Court. As per the said salary certificate, the respondent is earning Rs. 60,000/- per month; therefore, the impugned order granting only Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance is liable to be modified by enhancing the maintenance amount. He submits that learned Family Court itself recorded in paragraph 35 of the impugned judgment that the respondent is earning Rs. 60,000/- per month as salary and has also admitted in his evidence that he is the owner of agricultural land and other plots. The learned Court further observed that the applicant is entitled to enjoy an equal standard of living as that of the respondent. Despite such findings, the learned Family Court granted only Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance, which is grossly inadequate and insufÏcient to enable the applicant to enjoy an equal standard of life. Hence, the maintenance amount deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that it is duly proved on record that the applicant is residing separately for sufÏcient and reasonable cause, and the maintenance amount granted is wholly insufÏcient considering her needs and the income of the respondent. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the reply filed by the respondent does not specifically or properly deny the averments made in the application filed by the applicant, and further ignored the mandatory provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while passing the impugned order. 8. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent opposes the 4 prayers and submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the order dated 23.03.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that the application preferred by the applicant herein under Section 125 of the CrPC for grant of maintenance before the Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, was partly allowed, awarding maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to the applicant. Observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 11. 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. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek