1 2026:CGHC:8097 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 523 of 2024 Amrit Lal Tirkey S/o Shri Augustus Tirkey, Aged About 46 Years Occupation- Service, Force No. 670033, 81st Bataliean, Central Reserve Police Force, Jaspur Nagar (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Alma W/o Shri Amrit Lal Tirkey, Aged About 40 Years Occupation- None, R/o Vinay Tirkey Ka Makan, Durga Mandir Gali, Rambhata, Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13 /02/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by learned Family Court Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.F-01/2020, 2 whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month, stating that she was married to the applicant on 05.06.2018 as per religious customs. She alleged that after some time of marriage, the applicant, who was addicted to alcohol, subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. She further stated that the applicant has two children from his first wife (who had expired), and that she was not permitted to meet them. It was also alleged that prior to marriage she was working as a teacher in a private school, but after marriage the applicant did not allow her to continue her employment. According to her, she was later driven out of the matrimonial home and has since been residing at her parental house without any source of income. She claimed that the applicant is employed as a Pharmacist in the Central Reserve Police Force and earns about Rs.1,02,400/- per month, and therefore sought maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. The applicant filed his reply admitting the marriage but denied the allegations of cruelty. He stated that the respondent is his second wife and that his two children from his first wife are being cared for by his aged parents. He contended that the respondent insisted 3 on living separately and was unwilling to take care of his children and parents, and that her refusal to reside jointly was the reason for separation. He further stated that the respondent is well- educated and presently working as a cook at Cent Ursline, Dharamjaigarh, earning Rs.15,000/- per month, and is therefore capable of maintaining herself. He also expressed willingness to keep her with him, provided she resides with his family. 3. During the proceedings, the respondent filed an application for interim maintenance, upon which the learned Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month from 30.12.2019. After recording evidence of both parties and their witnesses, and considering affidavits regarding income and assets, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order granting maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 30.12.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the material available on record. The learned Court erred in awarding maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent from 30.12.2019 without properly appreciating the pleadings, documents and evidence placed before it. The award is excessive and has been granted without framing proper issues or considering the relevant facts of the case. He further submits 4 that the respondent is well-educated and is working as a Cook at Ursline, Dharamjaigarh, earning about Rs.15,000/- per month, and is therefore capable of maintaining herself. The Court also failed to consider that the respondent has been residing separately without sufficient cause and is unwilling to reside with the Appellant and his family. He also submits that the learned Court did not properly assess the income and liabilities of the Appellant, who is serving in the Central Reserve Police Force, has dependent minor children and aged parents, and is burdened with loan liabilities. A substantial portion of his salary is spent on family maintenance and other expenses. In these circumstances, the maintenance awarded is excessive, harsh and unsustainable in law, and therefore liable to be set aside. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. 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 respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance, 5 holding that the respondent had established sufficient and reasonable cause to reside separately due to cruelty and ill- treatment meted out to her. The Court observed that the applicant failed to prove that the respondent was living separately without justifiable grounds or that she was capable of maintaining herself independently. The learned Family Court further held that the applicant, being employed in the Central Reserve Police Force and drawing a substantial gross salary exceeding Rs.1,00,000/- per month (with basic pay around Rs.72,000/-), possessed sufficient means to maintain the respondent. Taking into consideration the income, status of the parties, and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding grant of maintenance particularly that ordinarily up to 25% of the husband’s net income may be considered reasonable, the Court found the amount of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of application to be just, proper and commensurate with the financial capacity of the applicant. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 6 10. 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