1 2026:CGHC:5536 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 829 of 2024 Mukesh Singh Rajput S/o. Dilip Singh Rajput Aged About 35 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Mukesh Singh Rathore In Order Sheet) R/o. Village - Saleha, Tehsil - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1- Annapurna Devi Rajput W/o. Mukesh Singh Rajput Aged About 24 Years R/o. Village - Sardha, Tehsil - Lormi, P.S. - Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Meghdatt Singh Rajput S/o. Mukesh Singh Rajput Aged About 6 Years R/o. Village - Sardha, Tehsil - Lormi, P.S. - Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Devesh Singh Raput S/o. Mukesh Singh Rajput Aged About 3 Years R/o. Village - Sardha, Tehsil - Lormi, P.S. - Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of respondents when the case is called out of hearing. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.02 16:19:10 +0530 2 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to modified/set- aside the impugned judgment dated 21.06.2024 passed by Judge, Family Court, Mungeli. passed in Misc Criminal Case No. 455/2022, wherein an amount of Rs. 5,500/- per month to applicant respectively in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief Facts of the case are that the non-applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and their marriage was solemnized in April 2017 (as per the wife) according to Hindu rites, from which wedlock two minor children, namely Meghdatt Singh Rathore aged about 6 years and Devdatt Singh Rathore aged about 3 years, were born. It is alleged that soon after marriage, the applicant subjected the non-applicant No.1 to cruelty and harassment, including demands for dowry, compelling her to live separately along with the minor children. Being neglected and deprived of financial support, the non-applicants were constrained to file an application under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance, as well as proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Upon consideration of the material on record, the learned JMFC, Lormi awarded a consolidated maintenance of Rs. 2,400/- per month under the Domestic Violence Act vide order dated 06.02.2023, and thereafter the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, by order dated 21.06.2021 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 455/2023, allowed the 3 application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant- husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month to non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 1,500/- per month each to the minor children, totaling Rs. 5,500/- per month, considering the applicant’s earning capacity and his legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor children. 5. The applicant submitted his reply to the said application and specifically stated that he does not have the income as alleged by the non-applicants. The learned Courts have failed to appreciate that the applicant has a very limited source of income, as he is working as an Assistant Employment and earns a monthly salary of only Rs. 5,280/- along with an allowance of Rs. 2,000/-, and owns merely 1.25 decimal of non-agricultural land, which does not generate any substantial income. On the other hand, non-applicant No.1 is not solely dependent upon the applicant, as she is gainfully employed in a shop earning approximately Rs. 300/- per day and is also the only daughter of her parents, having a share in about 10 acres of agricultural land. The learned Courts have further failed to consider that the allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry are false, motivated, and concocted, and that non-applicant No.1 had performed the marriage under parental compulsion and thereafter continuously harassed and humiliated the applicant. Without properly appreciating these material facts and the actual financial capacity of the applicant, the learned Family Court has mechanically awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,500/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in addition to Rs. 2,400/- per month awarded under the Domestic Violence Act, which is wholly disproportionate and beyond the paying capacity of the applicant. Since the quantum of maintenance has been fixed without due 4 consideration of the applicant’s income, liabilities, and the independent means of non-applicant No.1, the impugned orders deserve to be modified or set aside in the interest of justice. 6. On 21.06.2024, the learned Family Court passed an order in favour of the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,500/- per month each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 towards maintenance. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, arbitrary, and perverse, as it has been passed without any reliable documentary evidence regarding the applicant’s income. The learned Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is a temporary employee earning only Rs. 5,280/- per month with an allowance of Rs. 2,000/-, and is not in a financial position to pay the excessive maintenance awarded, particularly when maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the Domestic Violence Act cumulatively exceeds his earning capacity. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 is herself earning, has independent means, and has deserted the applicant despite his willingness to discharge matrimonial obligations, as reflected by his application for restitution of conjugal rights. The quantum of maintenance awarded is thus excessive and contrary to settled law, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside or suitably modified in the interest of justice. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the 5 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. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav