1 2026:CGHC:5294 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 264 of 2024 Kailash Prasad S/o Baijnath Prasad, Aged About 32 Years R/o Khursipar Zone-2, Garden Road, Bapu Nagar, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Pushpa Gautam W/o Kailash Prasad D/o Narsih Kumar Gautam, Aged About 22 Years R/o Chota Ramnagar, R/o Chota Ramnagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and set aside the order dated 28.12.2023 (Annexure A/1) passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in MCC No. 714/2018, in the interest of justice” 3. Brief facts of the case the the applicant is the husband and the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.02 11:16:40 +0530 2 respondent is the wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 19.02.2017 according to Hindu customs and rituals. The respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court, Raipur, claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month. It was stated that after some time of the marriage, the applicant and his family members started subjecting the respondent to cruelty and demanded dowry. According to the respondent, on 27.05.2018, the applicant drove her out of the matrimonial house. A complaint was also made by the respondent before the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, alleging physical and mental harassment, due to which she was constrained to reside at her parental home. She further pleaded that the applicant was working in a private firm and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. It was also pleaded that the applicant was earning Rs. 1,50,000/- per month from rental income and Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum from agricultural land. The respondent pleaded that she had no independent source of income and, therefore, was entitled to maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month. 4. The applicant filed his reply denying the allegations made in the application filed by the respondent. He pleaded that he had gone to the house of the respondent to bring her back, however, he was abused and insulted by the father of the respondent and was not allowed to take her back. It was further pleaded that the applicant is only a High School pass, whereas the respondent is highly qualified and used to insult the applicant on that account. During the course of counseling at Mahila Thana, Raipur, the respondent had clearly refused to reside with the applicant. The applicant pleaded that he is an unskilled labourer working in a private company and earns only Rs. 6,000/- per month as salary. The applicant had also filed an application for restitution of conjugal 3 rights, which was later dismissed as not pressed. It was further pleaded that the respondent was not entitled to receive any amount towards maintenance, and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the said application. 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application filed by the respondent and granted maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is apparently bad in law on the facts available on record. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. He also submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that the income of the applicant has been assessed at Rs. 8,000/- per month, and if half of the said salary is directed to be paid towards maintenance, it would be extremely difÏcult for the applicant to maintain himself and his dependent parents. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the application for grant of maintenance was filed on 07.09.2018, whereas the final order was passed on 28.12.2023, and during the said intervening period, the Covid-19 pandemic also prevailed. Awarding maintenance from the date of filing of the application, after such a long lapse of time, would cause grave financial hardship to the applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent is more educationally qualified than the applicant, who is merely a High School pass and is working as an unskilled labourer in a private company. Even during the course of counselling proceedings,the respondent had refused to reside with the applicant. He submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that the applicant had filed an application for restitution of 4 conjugal rights; however, the same was later dismissed as not pressed. The quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive and disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, deserves to be interfered with by this Hon’ble Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek