1 2026:CGHC:5573 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 326 of 2024 Chitralekha Banjare W/o Parasram Banjare, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Nawapara Mungeli Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Parasram Banjare S/o Shri Mangtu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bhalupan P.S. And Tahsil District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be passed to allow this revision petition and further be pleased to enhanced the maintenance amount passed by learned Family Court Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC No. 62/2023, parties between "Chitralekha Banjare Vs. Parasram Banjare" in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance on the ground that the non-applicant had neglected and refused to maintain her, and prayed for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs.30,000/- per month. Upon issuance and service of notice, the non-applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his reply to the main application as well as to the application for interim maintenance. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2024, whereby maintenance of only Rs.7,000/- per month was granted in favour of the applicant, despite the fact that the non- applicant is earning a monthly salary of Rs.65,000/-, as reflected from the salary certificate (Exhibit A/1). Being aggrieved by the said order dated 31.01.2024, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court is perverse, erroneous, illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record, and therefore liable to be modified. It is contended that while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate that the applicant is residing separately for sufÏcient and justifiable reasons, and that the respondent has neither filed any application for restitution of conjugal rights nor shown any intention to resume matrimonial life. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court ignored the salary 3 certificate of the respondent, duly exhibited on record, which clearly establishes that the respondent is earning Rs.65,000/- per month, a fact which has also been specifically noted by the Court itself in paragraph 35 of the impugned order, along with the respondent’s admission regarding ownership of 7.5 acres of agricultural land and other properties. Despite recording these findings and acknowledging that the applicant is entitled to enjoy a standard of living commensurate with that of the respondent, the learned Family Court granted a meagre amount of Rs.7,000/- per month, which is wholly insufÏcient and defeats the very object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the reply filed by the respondent did not specifically deny the material averments made by the applicant, yet the same was erroneously relied upon. In view of the settled legal position and the proved income and assets of the respondent, the maintenance amount awarded to the applicant deserves to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/- per month, and the impugned order is liable to be modified accordingly. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District Mungeli, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of 4 Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance on the allegation of neglect and refusal by the non- applicant and claimed maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. After due issuance and service of notice, the respondent appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his reply to the main application as well as to the application for interim maintenance. The learned Family Court, after carefully considering the pleadings of both the parties, the material placed on record, and the salary certificate of the non-applicant (Exhibit A/1), and upon a prima facie assessment of the income, liabilities and circumstances of the parties, passed the order dated 31.01.2024 granting maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month in favour of the applicant. The learned Family Court exercised its judicial discretion in a fair and balanced manner, keeping in view the scope of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the impugned order has been passed after proper appreciation of facts and law. 7. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 9. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan