1 2026:CGHC:8188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 103 of 2024 Smt. Babita Patwa W/o Mr. Rakesh Patwa, D/o Satanand Patwa Aged About 28 Years R/o Nagar Parishad Bankhedi, Kalpana Beauty Parlor Main Market Bankhedi, Post- Bankhedi, P.S. And Tehsil- Bankhedi, District- Narmadapuram (Houshangabad), M.P. Present Address- Pujari General Store Baazarpara, Village Panchayat Patwa, P.S. And Tehsil- Patna, District Koriya, C.G. ... Applicant versus Mr. Rakesh Patwa S/o Premshankar Patwa Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Pump Operator And Computer Operator R/o Nagar Parishad Bankhedi, Kalpana Beauty Parlor Main Market Bankhedi, Post- Bankhedi, P.S. And Tehsil- Bankhedi, District- Narmadapuram (Houshangabad), M.P. ... Respondent For applicant : Mr. Aditya Chopda, Advocates. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Chopda, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. The present petition has been :led by the applicant seeking following prayer:- "It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that, the nal order dated 23.12.23 (Annexure A/1) passed in Cr MJC No. 128 of 2023 passed by the Family Court, Manendragarh, Camp- Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (C.G.), may kindly be modied and the application led by the applicant ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.19 10:58:45 +0530 2 may kindly be allowed throughout cost, in the interest of justice." 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant and the respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 04.12.2022. Thereafter, disputes arose between them, and they have been living separately since then. The wife of the applicant herein :led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. 4. On 25.10.2023, the respondent appeared before the learned Family Court and his presence was duly recorded. The matter was thereafter :xed for 24.11.2023, however, on the said date, the respondent failed to appear, and due to his absence, the proceedings were continued ex parte. 5. The learned Family Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, assessed the income of the respondent at approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month and granted Rs. 3,000/- per month to the present applicant as interim maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order regarding the maintenance amount is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances of the present case. He submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that, as per the statement of the wife, the present respondent is working as a Pump Operator and Computer Operator and also holds joint agricultural land along with his father, from which he earns approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month. The income of the respondent could have been properly ascertained, however, the respondent willfully failed to appear before the learned Court on 24.11.2023 in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. :led by the wife. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the income assessed by it is on the lower side, particularly when the respondent is working as a Pump Operator and Computer Operator. The respondent’s 3 failure to appear before the learned Family Court clearly indicates that he knowingly and intentionally abstained from the proceedings in order to conceal his actual income from the Court. The learned Family Court ought to have considered that Rs. 3,000/- per month, in the present cost of living, is grossly inadequate and insu@cient to meet even the minimum day-to-day expenses. He submits that learned Family Court, without any proper evidence regarding the respondent’s income, arbitrarily assessed his income equivalent to that of an unskilled worker, which is unjust and improper. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. :led by the applicant. The Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 3000/- to the applicant. The Court considered the income, social, and economic status of both parties and the current price index, and the award cannot be said to be on the lower side. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the :nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in:rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (RameshSinha) Chief Justice Abhishek