1 2026:CGHC:5719 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 167 of 2026 Shyam Sundar Singh S/o Shri Bholaram Kshatriya Aged About 35 Years Presently Aged About 35 Years, R/o Umda, Bhilai-3, Tah. And Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Durga Singh W/o Shyam Sundar Singh Aged About 38 Years Presently Aged About 38 Years, R/o- C/o- Shri Ratanlal Kashyap, Sundarnagar, Kohka, Bhilai, Tah. And Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, Dist.-Durg (C.G.) in M.C.R.C. No. 153/2023, in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the Applicant/husband and Non-Applicant/wife took place on KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 20.04.2019 with the consent of both families according to Hindu rituals and customs at Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.), and thereafter they started residing together. The Non-Applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance stating in her application that just after the marriage, the Applicant/husband and his family members started misbehaving with her, she stated that her mother-in-law drank liquor with her father-in-law's brother every evening and after one week of marriage, the Applicant/husband’s family members started demanding dowry of ₹2,00,000/- and a motorcycle and began harassing her mentally and physically, the sisters-in-law also misbehaved with her and threatened her to leave the home. She further stated that the applicant/husband told her that the marriage was performed by taking a loan and to pay the EMI of the loan she had to do a job and repay it, he also used filthy language and beat her and pressurized her to wear small clothes. The Non-Applicant/wife further stated that the behavior of the father-in- law was also not good and he tried to molest her, the sister of her father-in-law also harassed her mentally and physically due to dowry demand that she made a complaint at Mahila Police Station, Sector-6 Bhilai, and no compromise took place. The Applicant/husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act to save himself and his family members, she stated that the applicant/husband did not sleep with her in the same room and slept with his mother and her sisters-in-law also treated her with cruelty and after returning from her maternal house, she stayed at 3 the matrimonial house but after 15 days quarrels again started and she was left at her maternal house repeatedly for 10-10 days for about six months, that on 08.10.2019 the Applicant/husband and his family members quarreled and told her that their marital ways had parted and she should marry someone else. She further stated that on 27.11.2019, the applicant/husband came to apologize, assured a happy married life, took her to Puri on a trip, but after returning he did not take her to the matrimonial house and instead left her in the middle of the road. The applicant/husband started defaming the Non-Applicant/wife in society and his family members also threatened and harassed her publicly, that the sister-in-law harassed her from different phone numbers and that she has been living at her maternal home since 28.10.2019 and neither was she contacted nor paid maintenance. She futher stated that the Applicant/husband works as a Computer Operator in the Pension Department of Municipal Corporation Bhilai-3 earning ₹20,000– ₹30,000/- per month and also earns ₹15,000–₹20,000/- from part- time computer work and agricultural income, while the Non- Applicant/wife has no source of income; therefore she claimed ₹20,000/- per month as maintenance and ₹15,000/- as litigation expenses. 3. The applicant/husband filed a reply denying the allegations and stated that the Non-applicant/wife is living separately without sufÏcient reason; no cruelty or dowry demand was made; she insisted on living separately from his parents, her behavior was not good; she refused household work and frequently went to her 4 maternal home, her police complaint was vague and baseless; he is ready to keep her but she imposed a condition of separate residence, he is the only earning member and has responsibility of old parents, widow sister and her daughter, another mentally ill sister and his uncle and he made several efforts to bring her back but she refused and in counseling and social meetings she refused to live with him; even in Section 9 of HMA proceedings she insisted on separate residence, he earns only ₹11,207/- in hand per month while the Non-Applicant/wife earns ₹10,000–₹15,000/- by tailoring; hence she is not entitled to maintenance. 4. The learned Family Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issue and after recording their statements, awarded ₹2,500/- per month as interim maintenance to the Non- Applicant from the date of the application. Subsequently, at the stage of final adjudication, the Court granted ₹4,500/- per month as regular maintenance from the date of the final order. Hence, the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, is illegal, improper, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Family Court passed the impugned order without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The non-applicant/wife is residing separately without any sufÏcient reason and is earning approximately ₹10,000/- to ₹15,000/- per month through tailoring work and is therefore capable of maintaining herself, whereas the 5 applicant is earning only ₹11,207/- per month and also bears the responsibility of his aged parents, widowed sister and her daughter, another sister suffering from mental illness, his uncle (Chacha), along with his own personal expenses. The learned Family Court further erred in ignoring that the non-applicant used to pressurize the applicant/husband to live separately from his parents and frequently went to her maternal home without any valid reason. The Family Court awarded maintenance on the higher side without adhering to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the determination of maintenance and without properly assessing the financial condition and liabilities of the applicant. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the statements of witnesses, the evidence on record and the financial condition and liabilities of the applicant therefore, the maintenance order awarded to the non- applicant/wife is liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Family Court concerned had awarded ₹2,500/- per month as interim maintenance to the Non- applicant from the date of the application. Subsequently, at the stage of final adjudication, the Court granted ₹4,500/- per month as regular maintenance from the date of the final order. While passing 6 the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal