1 CGHC010089882025 2026:CGHC:34569 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 316 of 2025 Smt. Ritu W/o Anil Bajpai Aged About 40 Years Current R/o Village Patna, Post And Police Station Patna, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Anil Bajpai S/o Late Ramesh Bajpai Aged About 52 Years Posted As Cap Lamp Issuer, Secl, Navapara, Latori. R/o Old Mines Quarter No. 10, Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. … Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 1led by the applicant with the following prayer : “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the impugned by the judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, Camp Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.), in M.J.C. Case No. 91/2024, may kindly be set aside and the maintenance amount be suitably enhanced, in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant/wife and the respondent/husband was solemnized on 11.12.2020 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Village Patna, District Koriya (C.G.). Thereafter, the applicant instituted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, Camp Baikunthpur, District Koriya, seeking maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month. In the said application, it was pleaded that at the time of marriage, the applicant’s parents had provided su@cient dowry articles according to their 1nancial capacity, including cash, gold ornaments and other household articles. It was further averred that immediately after the marriage, the respondent took the applicant to his ancestral home at Katni, Madhya Pradesh, for performing customary family rituals and thereafter both returned to Bhatgaon, where the applicant resided in her matrimonial home. According to the applicant, during her stay with the respondent and his family members, she was subjected to continuous mental cruelty and harassment by the respondent, his mother and younger brother on account of an unlawful demand for additional dowry, alleging that only Rs.6,00,000/- had been given at the time of marriage whereas the respondent, being employed in SECL, was expected to receive Rs.15,00,000/- in cash and a car, and she was repeatedly compelled to bring an additional sum of Rs.10,00,000/- along with a car from her parental home. It was further pleaded that shortly after the marriage, owing to the unfortunate demise of her younger brother, the applicant stayed at her parental home for about six to 3 seven months with the consent of the respondent, and even after her return, the demand for dowry and harassment continued. It was also alleged that the respondent advised the applicant to stay temporarily at her parental home on the pretext that the SECL quarter was too small and that after completion of the construction of a new house at Ambikapur, they would reside there permanently. The applicant further stated that she resided with the respondent till October, 2023, whereafter she returned to her parental home on the assurance of the respondent that he would bring her back within a week, however, he neither came to take her back nor maintained cordial relations thereafter, and gradually stopped communicating with her. It was further averred that on 27.05.2024 she received a call from the Women’s Police Station, Ambikapur informing her that the respondent had lodged a report alleging that she was suEering from epilepsy and that he was unwilling to keep her with him, which, according to the applicant, was a false and fabricated allegation made only to create grounds for obtaining a divorce. The applicant further pleaded that she is unemployed and has no independent source of income to maintain herself, whereas the respondent is employed in SECL and earns approximately Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per month, his mother receives pension and he owns a residential house at Ambikapur with no substantial 1nancial liabilities. On these averments, the applicant claimed maintenance commensurate with the respondent’s income and the standard of living to which she was accustomed. 4 3. The respondent 1led his detailed reply denying all the allegations levelled by the applicant. While admitting the marriage, he speci1cally denied the allegations of demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment and contended that the marriage was solemnized without any dowry and that neither he nor his family members had ever demanded any cash, car or other valuable articles from the applicant. It was further pleaded that the applicant had concealed the fact that she was suEering from epilepsy prior to the marriage and that she had hardly resided with the respondent as husband and wife. The respondent further asserted that he earns only about Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month, out of which he maintains himself, his aged mother, bears her medical expenses and also supports his unemployed younger brother, and therefore the allegations made in the application were false and the claim for maintenance was excessive and liable to be rejected. 4. Upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced on record and the material available before it, the learned Family Court, by order dated 31.01.2025, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and awarded maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month in favour of the applicant. Being dissatis1ed with the quantum of maintenance so awarded on the ground that it is grossly inadequate and disproportionate to the respondent’s actual income, 1nancial capacity and the standard of living enjoyed by the applicant during the subsistence of marriage, the applicant has preferred the present Criminal Revision seeking enhancement 5 of the maintenance amount. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and evidence available on record to the extent it awards only a meagre amount of maintenance to the applicant. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the applicant, which clearly establishes that the respondent is employed in SECL and earns a monthly salary of approximately Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the respondent himself admitted his earning capacity, yet the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of only Rs.12,000/- per month without assigning any cogent reason for awarding such an inadequate amount, which bears no reasonable nexus with the respondent’s actual income and 1nancial capacity. She further submits that while determining the quantum of maintenance, the learned Family Court failed to consider the standard of living to which the applicant was accustomed during the subsistence of the marriage and also overlooked the fact that the respondent has no substantial 1nancial liabilities, inasmuch as his mother is receiving pension and he owns a residential house at Ambikapur. 6. It is further argued that the applicant is unemployed, has no independent source of income and is wholly incapable of maintaining herself, whereas the respondent, being the legally wedded husband and a person having su@cient means, is under a 6 statutory obligation to maintain the applicant. It is also contended that the learned Family Court failed to give due weight to the applicant’s 1nancial dependence upon the respondent and awarded an amount wholly insu@cient to meet her basic needs and maintain a standard of living commensurate with the status of the parties. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to correctly apply the principles governing determination of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the maintenance awarded is grossly inadequate, warranting enhancement by this Hon’ble Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them, and the entire material available on record, has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and passed a well-reasoned order in accordance with law. The learned Family Court has duly taken into consideration the marital relationship between the parties, the allegations and counter-allegations advanced by them, the 1nancial status and earning capacity of the respondent, as well as the fact that the applicant has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. Upon proper appreciation of the evidence, the learned Family Court found that the respondent, being the legally wedded husband and a person having su@cient 7 means, is under a statutory obligation to maintain the applicant and, accordingly, rightly awarded maintenance in her favour. While determining the quantum of maintenance, the learned Family Court struck a balance between the needs of the applicant and the 1nancial capacity and liabilities of the respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month after considering the material available on record. The 1ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and the settled principles governing proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 1nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in1rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a certi1ed copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan