1 CGHC010117022025 2026:CGHC:35607 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 446 of 2025 Sanjay Verma S/o Shri Tekram Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Hotel Maruti-Inn, Bhatapara Road, Baloda Bazar, P.S. Baloda Bazar, Dist - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Madhubala Verma W/o Sanjay Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Village - Mungeshar, Chandrakhuri Farm, Post - Chandrakhuri, P.S. - Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Vedant Verma S/o Sanjay Verma Aged About 9 Years Through Mother Natural Guardian Smt. Madhubala Verma, R/o Village - Mungeshar, Chandrakhuri Farm, Post - Chandrakhuri, P.S. - Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12 /08/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Criminal Case No.103/2021, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant/husband and respondent No.1/wife were married on 18.05.2013 according to Hindu rites and customs and resided together till 05.12.2020, whereafter they started living separately. The wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging cruelty, harassment for dowry and other matrimonial disputes, and claimed maintenance for herself and their son. The applicant/husband denied the allegations and contended that the wife was living separately without sufficient reason, was educated and practicing as an advocate, and had an independent source of income. The learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to the son. Subsequently, the wife was granted Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance by this Court, which order was upheld in MCC No.516/2024 vide order dated 02.12.2024. Thereafter, the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance payable to the wife and son to Rs.15,000/- per month, making the total liability Rs.28,012/- per month including the existing Rs.8,000/- maintenance and other payments made by the applicant towards the son. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant/husband has preferred the present revision, 3 contending that his net salary is only Rs.32,149/- per month and that he has other financial liabilities towards his second wife, aged parents and personal expenses. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 is illegal, improper and contrary to the facts, circumstances and evidence on record. It is contended that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 has already been dissolved on the ground of cruelty, and the respondent/wife is residing separately without sufficient reason. It is further submitted that she is already receiving rs.8,000/- per month under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, the award of further maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is unjustified. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the applicant’s actual financial position and existing liabilities. His net salary is Rs.32,149/- per month, whereas he is already paying Rs.8,000/- as maintenance to the wife, depositing Rs.1,000/- per month in the son’s recurring deposit account and paying Rs.4,012/- per month towards the LIC policy of the son. He also has liabilities towards his second wife, aged mother and personal expenses. Thus, the total maintenance liability is excessive and disproportionate to his income. He also submits that the respondent No.1/wife is an educated woman, enrolled and practicing as an advocate at District Bar, Raipur, and has sufficient earning capacity to maintain herself. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary 4 evidence, the financial condition and liabilities of the applicant, and the applicable principles governing award of maintenance. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside or suitably modified. 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 partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance, holding that respondent No.1 had sufficient and reasonable grounds to reside separately from the applicant on account of the alleged physical and mental cruelty, harassment and ill-treatment. The learned Family Court further held that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and respondent No.2 is his minor son and, therefore, both are entitled to claim maintenance. While determining the quantum, the Court considered that the applicant was employed as a Supervisor at UltraTech Cement Plant and 5 was capable of earning, whereas respondent No.1 was engaged in legal practice. Therefore, after considering the social and economical status of both the parties, the learned Family Court granted maintenance to the respondents as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher 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