1 CGHC010074822025 2026:CGHC:35956 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 342 of 2025 Satish Agrawal S/o Radheshyam Agrawal Aged About 42 Years Caste Agrawal, R/o Janakpur Road, Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Rajni Agrawal W/o Satish Agrawal Aged About 35 Years Caste Agrawal, R/o Village Haal Mukam Main Road, Sutarra, C/o Bansal Hardware Sutarra, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh 2. Minor Kumar Purwai Agrawal D/o Shri Satish Agrawal Aged About 12 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Rajni Agrawal W/o Satish Agrawal, R/o Village Haal Mukam Main Road, Sutarra, C/o Bansal Hardware Sutarra, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh 3. Minor Vibhor Agrawal S/o Shri Satish Agrawal Aged About 8 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Rajni Agrawal W/o Satish Agrawal, R/o Village Haal Mukam Main Road, Sutarra, C/o Bansal Hardware Sutarra, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Praveen Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. The applicant has filed the present criminal revision against the order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), in Criminal M.J.C. No. 50/2019, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.14 17:32:59 +0530 2 whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant-husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 4,000/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is the husband of respondent No. 1, and their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs on 05.05.2005 at Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). hat the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for grant of maintenance on 10.05.2019 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Katghora, District Korba, which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 50/2019 against the Revisionist. In the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it was alleged that after marriage, the parties resided at Village Takhatpur, District Bilaspur. It was further alleged that the husband and his family members subjected the wife to cruelty and abused her without any reason. It was also alleged that on 03.10.2018, the wife was assaulted and that on 10.03.2019, at Pendari Road, the husband intentionally dashed the wife with his motorcycle with an intention to kill her. The matter was reported to the police, and thereafter, on 10.03.2019, the wife was allegedly driven out of the matrimonial home. The applicants/wife claimed maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month from the husband. The husband filed his reply before the learned Family Court, denying all the allegations levelled against him. It was stated in the reply that the husband had no sufficient source of income and was working at Takhatpur. It was further stated that the wife had refused to reside in the joint family and was living separately without any sufficient or justifiable reason. Before the learned Trial Court, the applicant/wife examined herself in support of her case, whereas the husband examined a witness 3 in his defence. That the learned Family Court, vide the impugned order, allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance of Rs.17,000/- per month to the applicants/wife payable by the husband. That the learned Family Court has granted maintenance without there being sufficient material on record and without properly considering the fact that the wife had no sufficient or justifiable reason to reside separately from her husband. Hence, the present revision is being preferred against the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is also contrary to the settled principles of law. The learned trial Court has passed the impugned order without properly considering the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Court below failed to appreciate that the wife had no sufficient or justifiable reason to reside separately from her husband. The learned trial Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.17,000/- per month without properly considering the actual income and financial capacity of the husband. The husband is engaged in a small business and earns approximately Rs.60,000/- per annum. He produced documents in support of his income; however, the learned Trial Court disbelieved the same without assigning any cogent or sufficient reason. The learned Family Court has allowed the application filed by the wife by relying upon the name of a firm allegedly mentioned in the marriage invitation card, despite there being no specific pleading in the application regarding the said firm or the income derived therefrom. The learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the statement of the husband and, instead, relied predominantly upon the statement of the wife while determining the maintenance. The learned Family Court has failed to properly assess the 4 financial capacity of the husband and the needs of the wife before determining the quantum of maintenance. The amount awarded is excessive and disproportionate to the actual income of the husband. Thes maintenance of Rs.17,000/- per month awarded by the learned Family Court is on the higher side and beyond the financial capacity of the husband. In view of his actual income and financial circumstances, he does not have sufficient means to pay the said amount as maintenance. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti