1 2026:CGHC:5567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 368 of 2024 Priyanka Tiwari W/o- Suraj Tiwari, Aged About 25 Years R/o Through- Roopnarayan Tiwari,qua. No. 12,pension- Bada, Behind Holi Cross- School, Azad Chowk, Raipur,district- Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Suraj Tiwari S/o Anirudha Tiwari, Aged About 28 Years R/o- Professor Colony, Sector- 1, Gali No. 4,qua. No. 252/1, P.S.- Punrani Basti, Raipur,district- Raipur- Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Ms. Ruchi Nagar 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 is therefore prayed that the petition may be allow and the order impugned passed by the court bellow in M.C.C. no. 65/2020 be modified and the 4 amount of maintenance be enhanced up to 50% of Non- applicant's gross income from all sources that is up to RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 1,00,000/- per month, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant–wife and the non-applicant–husband were married on 22.04.2016 according to Hindu customs and have no children. After marriage, the applicant resided with the non-applicant and his father and younger sister-in- law, during which she was subjected to harassment, taunting, and physical abuse by the father-in-law over dowry demands, including an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, and her stridhan was retained by the non-applicant. Despite temporarily returning to her parental home due to repeated cruelty, she was persuaded to go back, but continued to face humiliation and was ultimately forced to live separately, with all her expenses borne by her father. The applicant reported the matter to Mahila Thana, Raipur, resulting in registration of a case under Sections 498A/34 IPC. The non- applicant is engaged in a building material business, ‘Tiwari Construction,’ earning approximately Rs.2,00,000/- per month, whereas the applicant has no independent source of income. The learned Family Court, after examining the evidence and applying judicial mind, allowed the maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., granting Rs.5,000/- per month, having earlier provided Rs.10,000/- as interim maintenance. Considering the non- applicant’s income, inflation, and prior interim maintenance, the applicant contends she is entitled to an enhancement of maintenance, and therefore files the present petition. 3 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order of the learned Family Court is bad in law and contrary to settled legal principles. It is submitted that the non-applicant/husband in his afÏdavit and court statements initially denied owning a car and operating a business under the name of Suraj Traders, but later admitted the same when confronted with documents. Despite this, he failed to produce any supporting documents such as ITRs or corroboration for his claim of payments to the applicant/wife, and the learned trial court erroneously relied on his statements, reducing the maintenance granted earlier as interim maintenance from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, which is unsustainable. The non-applicant is earning substantial income, approximately Rs.2,00,000/- per month, owns vehicles, and is a member of the building material suppliers’ association in Raipur, whereas the applicant/wife is incapable of earning or maintaining herself, as established by her evidence and unchallenged by the non-applicant. The learned Family Court failed to properly apply its judicial mind and the principles laid down in Rajnesh vs Neha, and in view of the non-applicant’s actual income and resources, the maintenance ought to be enhanced appropriately, and the reduction from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- is arbitrary and requires rectification. 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 First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.). 4 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 learned Family Court has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in the matter. The Court, after carefully examining the pleadings, evidence, and material on record, correctly held that the applicant– wife, being legally married to the non-applicant–husband and having no independent income, was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Court considered the allegations of harassment, cruelty, and physical abuse by the non- applicant’s family, the retention of the applicant’s stridhan, and the fact that the applicant was compelled to live separately with all her expenses borne by her father. The learned Family Court granted Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance, appropriately taking into account the non-applicant’s income from his business, the earlier interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/-, and the circumstances of the applicant. The learned Family Court’s order is just, legal, and in consonance with the principles of law, having rightly provided relief to the applicant while applying due judicial mind to the facts of the case. 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. 5 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 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