1 2026:CGHC:5552 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 575 of 2024 Mohit Sharma S/o Shri Manilal Sharma Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Atari (Veer Savarkar Nagar) Post Tendua, P.S. Kabir Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh And Other Address Through Manilalji Sharma (Atari Wale) Shitla Mandir Near Pond, Kushalpur, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Pragya Sharma W/o Mohit Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Atari (Veer Savarkar Nagar) Post Tendua, P.S. Kabir Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh At Present Resident Of Rudri Road, Radhaswami Satsang Bhawan, Shri Nagar Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. 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 09.04.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.154/2021, whereby, the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.6000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent married the applicant on 25.06.2020 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Shortly after the marriage, the applicant allegedly harassed and mentally tortured the respondent in connection with dowry demands, prompting the respondent to leave the matrimonial home after two months and reside at her parental house. The applicant is employed as a Constable with a monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/- and also owns agricultural land and 2–3 houses generating an annual income of approximately Rs. 40,000/-. The respondent has no independent source of income and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The applicant contested the application, denying all allegations. The learned Family Court, after framing issues, passed an order dated 09.04.2024 directing the applicant to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance. The applicant has challenged this order as illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned maintenance order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted. The applicant has elderly parents and family members fully dependent on him, and the respondent left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason after five months of marriage, making her ineligible for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He further submits that 3 the respondent earns income as a teacher at Vande Matram English School and as a priest at Vindhyavasini Mandir, receiving Rs. 10,000–20,000/- per month, and has failed to prove the applicant’s income. The maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month is therefore excessive and unsustainable, especially considering the applicant’s responsibility toward his dependent parents. He also submits that the Family Court overlooked key facts, including the absence of the applicant during proceedings and the deliberate residence of the respondent at her parental home, and passed the order arbitrarily. In view of the above, the impugned maintenance order is liable to be quashed, and the applicant reserves the right to raise additional grounds and submit relevant documents before this Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.6000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance holding that the respondent was justified in living separately due to cruelty and harassment by the applicant and is unable to maintain herself. 4 Considering the financial capacity of the applicant and the needs of the respondent, the Family Court granted maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil