1 CGHC010432442024 2026:CGHC:32995 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1403 of 2024 Smt. Tanu Bhagat D/o Lajrus Bhagat Aged About 34 Years W/o Shri Kalyan Beg, R/o Quarter No. Lig B-1, Old Housing Board Colony, Near Atal Nagar Awas Kharmora, Tahsil And District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant(s) versus Kalyan Beg S/o Shri Nikolas Bek, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Tundri Block-Bilaigarh, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, --- At Present R/o - Quarter No. M-1560, Vikas Nagar, Kusmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aakash Ahuja, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30 /07/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.152/2019, whereby the learned Family AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent / husband to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to the applicant / wife towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent, filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. She pleaded that after her marriage on 29.01.2013 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands and was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home. It was further asserted that she has no independent source of income, whereas the respondent is employed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II in a Government Higher Secondary School and is financially capable of maintaining her. The respondent contested the application by denying the allegations and contending that the applicant had been residing separately without any sufficient cause and, therefore, was not entitled to maintenance. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 07.11.2024, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the applicant. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has awarded a meagre maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month, which is wholly inadequate and insufficient to meet her basic needs 3 and is liable to be enhanced. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant has no independent source of income and is entirely dependent on others for her livelihood, whereas the non-applicant is employed as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-II and earns a regular monthly salary, thereby having sufficient financial capacity to pay higher maintenance. He also submits that being the legally wedded wife, she is entitled to maintenance commensurate with the status and standard of living of the non-applicant. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the documentary evidence and the material available on record, resulting in an erroneous and inadequate determination of the maintenance amount. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent / husband to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to the applicant / wife towards maintenance, holding that the applicant was residing separately from the respondent for sufficient and justifiable reasons as she had been subjected to cruelty, dowry demands and physical and mental harassment, which stood corroborated by her contemporaneous complaints and oral evidence. The Family Court further held that although the applicant was engaged in private employment, her 4 income was not sufficient to maintain herself, whereas the respondent, being employed as a Vocational Teacher, was earning about Rs.20,790/- per month and had sufficient means to maintain the applicant. Accordingly, considering the financial status of the parties and the overall circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the applicant from the date of filing of the application. 6. Considering the submissions 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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