1 2026:CGHC:5822 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 843 of 2024 Smt. Sadhna Vastrakar W/o Manoj Kumar, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Parsada, Tahsil And P.S. Sakri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Manoj Kumar S/o Radheshyam, Aged About 35 Years R/o Jaithari Ward No.-3, Linepar, Tahsil -Jaithari, District Anuppur (M.P.) ... Respondent For applicant : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi and Ms. Najmi Begum, Advocates. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi and Ms. Najmi Begum, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. 2. The present petition has been filed by the applicant seeking following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and further be pleased to modify the impugned order dated 08.11.2023 (Annexure A/1) enhancing suitably the award amount from the date of filing of the application passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.03 13:24:09 +0530 2 No. 41/2022, by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of maintenance from her husband/respondent and claimed maintenance to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.05.2005 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and after marriage the applicant/wife started residing with her husband/respondent in her matrimonial home situated at Village Jaithari. In the application, the applicant/wife submitted that she and her husband/respondent lived happily for about two years after the marriage, and thereafter the husband/respondent and his mother started quarrelling with her. It was further alleged that the husband/respondent often consumed liquor and thereafter used to abuse and assault the applicant/wife. Consequently, the applicant/wife called her father and went to her parental house. It was further pleaded in the application that after some time, the husband/respondent came to take the applicant/wife back, and after arriving at a compromise before the elderly members of the society, he took the applicant/wife back to Village Jaithari; however, he again started quarrelling with and assaulting her. It was further stated that in March, 2022, the applicant/wife again came to her parental house and due to the imposition of lockdown could not return to her matrimonial home. It was further alleged that during this period, the husband/respondent used to call her on her mobile phone, abuse her, and ask her not to return to the matrimonial house. It was also pleaded that the husband/respondent belongs to a well-to-do family and is earning, and therefore he be directed to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month to the 3 applicant/wife. 4. The husband/respondent appeared before the learned trial Court and filed his written statement, stating therein that the applicant/wife used to quarrel with him and his parents and did not want to live jointly with his parents at Village Jaithari. It was further submitted by the husband/respondent that the applicant/wife used to threaten his parents with false implication in criminal cases and to send them to jail. It was also stated that the husband/respondent went to Village Parsada to bring the applicant/wife back to the matrimonial home, but she refused to live with him. It was further stated that the applicant/wife herself was not willing to live with the husband/respondent and had left the matrimonial home on 15.02.2020 with a person named Pankaj, and has been residing with him. The husband/respondent also submitted before the learned trial Court that he has no independent source of income and is totally dependent upon his father, and that his family is also dependent upon his father. It was further contended that the applicant/wife has no sufÏcient cause to live separately and, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance, and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 5. The learned Family Court, after recording the evidence of both the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, partly allowed the application and directed the husband/respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant/wife vide order dated 08.11.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Family Court is bad in the eyes of law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court has rightly considered the fact that the husband/non- 4 applicant made false allegations against the applicant/wife regarding her character and falsely stated that the applicant/wife had eloped with one Pankaj, which in itself is sufÏcient to hold that the applicant/wife was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the husband/non-applicant. He further submits that learned trial Court has correctly held that the applicant/wife had sufÏcient cause to live separately as she was subjected to cruelty and maltreatment; however, very unfortunately, a highly meagre amount has been awarded to the applicant/wife as maintenance, which is not justified. The learned trial Court has erred in directing the respondent/husband to pay maintenance from the date of the order, whereas the maintenance ought to have been awarded from the date of filing of the application. Learned trial Court ought to have considered that the respondent/husband has sufÏcient sources of income and good earning capacity, and therefore the maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- per month is liable to be enhanced. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. The Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 2000/- to the applicant. The Court considered the income, social, and economic status of both parties and the current price index, and the award cannot be said to be on the lower side. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 5 impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (RameshSinha) Chief Justice Abhishek