1 CGHC010471672025 2026:CGHC:36271 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1476 of 2025 Rajendra Kumar Sharma (A.S.) S/o Late A.P. Sharma, Aged About 60 Years Occupation- Retired Employee, R/o House No. 49/6, Radhika Nagar, Supela, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Sarita Sharma W/o Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 42 Years C/o Shri Kulbhushan Sharma, House No. 3/b, Ground Floor, Road No. 25, Sector-04, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, 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 05.08.2025 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.1357/2023 and Misc. Criminal Case No. 512/2024 whereby the learned Family Court has been pleased to partly allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 127 of Cr.P.c. and modified the earlier maintenance order passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 932/2016, reducing the maintenance from Rs. 20,000/- per month to Rs. 14,000/- per month. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is a retired employee of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), Bhopal, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.14 17:50:40 +0530 2 having retired from service on 24.01.2024. He does not receive any pension and is solely dependent upon the lump-sum retirement benefits received at the time of superannuation, which have gradually been exhausted towards medical treatment, household expenses, and the care and maintenance of his mentally and physically challenged younger brother, who is entirely dependent upon him. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant has no regular source of income after retirement, whereas the respondent is a highly qualified woman holding a Ph.D. in Zoology and is capable of earning and maintaining herself independently. The learned Family Court, while partly modifying the earlier order of maintenance, erred in law and on facts in continuing to impose an unjustified maintenance liability of Rs.14,000/- per month upon the applicant, despite his retirement, absence of pensionary income, and dependent responsibilities. The respondent-wife is highly qualified and has no dependent family members. The respondent-wife had earlier filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., registered as M.Cr.C. No. 932/2016, wherein, vide order dated 27.02.2018, maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month was awarded. Subsequently, both parties filed applications under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking modification of the maintenance order. The respondent-wife filed M.Cr.C. No. 1357/2023 seeking enhancement of maintenance, whereas the applicant-husband filed M.Cr.C. No. 512/2024 seeking reduction thereof. The learned Family Court, vide common order dated 05.08.2025, reduced the maintenance amount from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.14,000/- per month; however, it failed to properly appreciate the applicant's financial incapacity, absence of pensionary income, and his responsibility towards his dependent younger brother. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Family Judge, Durg (C.G.), under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal 3 Procedure, 1973, the applicant submits that the impugned order is perverse, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, and not just, proper, or proportionate. Hence, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed in disregard of the settled principles of law governing the award and determination of maintenance and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has failed to properly consider the material available on record and has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner, contrary to the facts and evidence brought on record. learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner has no regular source of income after retirement and is not receiving any pension. The only funds available to him are the fixed deposits created out of his terminal retirement benefits, which are gradually depleting towards his living expenses, medical treatment, and other necessary expenditures. The learned trial Court erred in ignoring the fact that the petitioner is also burdened with the care, maintenance, and medical expenses of his mentally and physically challenged younger brother, who is entirely dependent upon him, and whose dependency has been duly established on record. The learned Family Court failed to apply the principle of proportionality while determining the quantum of maintenance. The maintenance amount ought to be assessed by taking into consideration the income, earning capacity, liabilities, and financial circumstances of both parties. In this regard, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324, have not been properly considered. The learned trial Court failed to consider the respondent's own admission that she is a highly qualified woman holding 4 a Ph.D. in Zoology and that she had worked as an Assistant Professor and Guest Lecturer for several years prior to her marriage. These facts clearly demonstrate her educational qualifications, earning capacity, and employability. The learned trial Court erred in accepting the respondent's self-serving statement regarding her unemployment without there being sufficient and cogent material to establish that, despite possessing high educational qualifications and prior teaching experience, she is incapable of earning a reasonable livelihood. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the petitioner's financial circumstances have substantially deteriorated after his retirement and that he is required to meet his own living and medical expenses as well as the expenses of his dependent younger brother. The learned trial Court erred in treating the interest accruing on the petitioner's retirement corpus as a regular and sustainable source of income, without appreciating that the said corpus represents his terminal benefits and is gradually being depleted towards his necessary expenses. Such corpus cannot be treated as a permanent or recurring source of income for the purpose of imposing an excessive maintenance liability. The impugned order is arbitrary, excessive, and unjust, and has resulted in severe financial hardship to the petitioner, who is a retired person with no regular pensionary income and is also required to discharge substantial financial and familial responsibilities. The learned Family Court has failed to consider the settled principles governing determination of maintenance and has not properly considered the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-consideration of relevant factors and material evidence and is liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. The impugned order, to the extent it continues the maintenance liability of Rs.14,000/- per month upon the applicant without 5 properly assessing his present financial capacity, liabilities, and absence of pensionary income, is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be set aside or suitably modified in the interest of justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 6. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. 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