1 2026:CGHC:8129 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 813 of 2024 Smt. Lakshmi Sahu W/o Nitin Sahu Aged About 27 Years Presently Residing At- Through Shri Balmukund Sahu, Village Janglesar, Post Kanharpuri, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Nitin Sahu S/o Kaval Singh Sahu Aged About 30 Years Resident At- Near Nikhade Kirana Stores, Bimbagate Ward, Chandrapur Maharashtra. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to modify the impugned judgment dated 03.05.2024 in the matter titled as "Smt. Lakshmi Sahu v. Nitin Sahu", bearing Case No. 132/2022 and enhance the maintenance amount from INR 3,000/- to the tune of INR 20,000/-, in the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant–wife 7led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance on the ground that soon after her marriage she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demand, and was ultimately deserted on 13.05.2022, further pleading that the respondent is engaged as a civil contractor, owns two JCB machines, holds joint agricultural land, and earns substantial monthly income of approximately Rs.70,000– Rs.80,000/- from contractual work along with additional agricultural income, whereas the applicant is a homemaker having no independent source of livelihood. The respondent 7led a written statement denying the allegations and disputing his income, but failed to place any documentary proof of his earnings or assets, nor complied with the requirement of disclosure of income, thereby inviting adverse inference. During trial, the applicant examined herself and one supporting witness and produced documentary evidence in support of her case, whereas despite opportunity the respondent neither entered the witness box nor adduced any evidence to substantiate his defence. Upon hearing both parties, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant, which amount is alleged to be grossly inadequate in view of the respondent’s earning capacity and the applicant’s subsistence needs. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the pleadings, evidence, and documents available on record, has passed the impugned judgment awarding a meagre amount of maintenance, which is wholly inadequate to meet the basic and reasonable day-to-day expenses of the applicant–wife, who is otherwise entitled to live in a standard commensurate with that of her husband as settled by a catena of judicial pronouncements. It is further contended that the respondent has made only evasive denials regarding his income, assets, and liabilities and has deliberately failed to produce any supporting documents or comply with the requirement of disclosure, which ought to have been treated as an admission and should have invited an adverse inference in terms of the settled principles underlying Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, however, this crucial aspect has been overlooked by the learned Family Court. Learned counsel submits that despite speci7c pleadings and unrebutted evidence showing that the respondent is engaged as a civil contractor, owns two JCB machines, and earns substantial income from contractual and agricultural sources, the impugned judgment is completely silent on proper assessment of his 7nancial capacity. It is further urged that while determining the quantum of maintenance, the considerations analogous to those embodied in Section 23 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act such as the status and position of the parties, reasonable needs of the claimant, justi7cation for separate residence, and overall 7nancial circumstances have not been duly applied. Consequently, the 4 learned Family Court has awarded an unreasoned and disproportionately low amount of Rs.3,000/- per month, rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable in law and warranting enhancement of maintenance to a just and reasonable sum. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the evidence placed on record, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly and judiciously exercised its discretion in determining the entitlement as well as the quantum of maintenance payable to the applicant–wife. The Court has duly appreciated that, though allegations regarding higher income and ownership of assets by the respondent were raised, the same were not substantiated by cogent and reliable documentary evidence, and therefore the determination of maintenance had to be based upon the material actually proved on record, the reasonably assessable 7nancial capacity of the respondent, and the subsistence requirements of the applicant. After taking into consideration the status of the parties, the necessity of ensuring basic sustenance to the wife, and the settled legal principles 5 governing grant of maintenance, the learned Family Court has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant–wife, which reFects a fair, balanced, and legally sustainable exercise of judicial discretion. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 7nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in7rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certi7ed copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan