1 CGHC010179142025 2026:CGHC:36288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 586 of 2025 Chandraprabha Dubey W/o Shri Jitendra Dubey Aged About 35 Years D/o Shri Ganesh Ram Upadhyay, Caste Brahmin, R/o Village Sajapali Post- Katnai Tahsil And Police Station Akaltara, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Jitendra Dubey S/o Late Vishal Dubey Aged About 39 Years Presently Working In The Post Of Peon In Ekikrit Baal Vikas Pariyojana, Sakri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. R/o Arvind Nagar Bandhwapara, Bhandari Plot, Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikrant Pillay, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /08/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal 2 Case No.397/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that on 07.09.2022, the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), registered as M.C.C. No.397/2022, stating that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 10.02.2022 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals and that soon after marriage, the respondent and his family members started harassing her in connection with demand for dowry and, on 21.06.2022, assaulted her, compelling her to seek assistance from her brother and the 112 emergency response team, pursuant to which she was taken to Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, and thereafter, as the respondent and his family members did not take her back to the matrimonial home, she started residing at her maternal uncle’s house at Sarkanda, Bilaspur; thereafter, she lodged complaints before Police Station Sarkanda and Mahila Police Station, Bilaspur on 23.06.2022, and claimed that the respondent, who was working as a Peon in the Integrated Child Development Project, Sakri, District Bilaspur, was earning approximately Rs.40,000/- per month and accordingly sought maintenance of Rs.13,000/- per month. The respondent filed his 3 reply denying the allegations. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 17.03.2025, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC and awarded maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month in favour of the petitioner from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 07.09.2022, hence, the present revision has been preferred seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 is illegal, perverse and contrary to the material available on record, as the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence showing that the petitioner was subjected to harassment and assault by the respondent and his family members in connection with demand of dowry, which constituted sufficient and justifiable reason for her to reside separately. The marriage between the parties is undisputed, and the petitioner has expressed her willingness to reside with the respondent, whereas the respondent has filed a petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, registered as C.S. No.866/2024, seeking dissolution of marriage. He further submits that an FIR bearing Crime No.44/2022 was registered at Mahila Police Station, Bilaspur under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC against the respondent and his family members on the complaint of the petitioner, and the petition filed by them under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the said FIR was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner had also produced documents in support of 4 her case, exhibited as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-16, but the learned Family Court failed to properly consider the relevant documents, including Ex.A-16 and the final report dated 02.01.2023. He also submits that considering the respondent's employment and earning capacity, the circumstances compelling the petitioner to live separately, and the material evidence available on record, the petitioner ought to have been awarded the claimed maintenance of Rs.13,000/- per month instead of the meagre amount of Rs.2,500/- per month. Further, despite the order dated 17.03.2025, the respondent has not paid any maintenance amount to the petitioner, thereby causing serious prejudice and hardship to her. 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. 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 to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance, holding that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the 5 respondent and had sufficient and reasonable cause to reside separately in view of the allegations of cruelty and the pending criminal case under Sections 498-A/34 IPC. The learned Family Court further considered that the applicant is educated, has some financial support including Rs.1,000/- per month under the Mahtari Vandan Yojana, resides with her parents and has no rental liability, whereas the respondent is employed as a Peon in the Women and Child Development Department. Taking into consideration the respective circumstances, income and liabilities of the parties, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. Considering the submissions 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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