1 2026:CGHC:4714 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 146 of 2026 Amlata Kurrey W/o Bhagirathi Banjare Aged About 37 Years R/o Chanda Vihar Ameri Police Station Sakri Tehsil Sakri District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Bhagirathi Banjare S/o Shri Teejram Banjare Aged About 40 Years R/o Chanda Vihar Ameri Police Station Sakri Prathmesh Vihar, House No. 50, Home Owner Vikash Khandekar, Ghuru, Ameri Tehsil Sakri District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Chanmeet Singh Chhabra along with Mr. Navneet Singh Gumber, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.21/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has allowed the application under Section 125 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the applicant, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 03.06.2023 at Village Devari (Sangwa), Police Station and Tehsil Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, in accordance with the customs prevailing in the Hindu community. It is the case of the applicant that prior to marriage the respondent was residing separately from his parental house in a rented accommodation at a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- and had assured the applicant that she would be kept there. After marriage, the applicant lived with the respondent in the said rented house for about two months, where the household articles and gifts given to her at the time of marriage were kept and used by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent shifted essential household articles including the gas stove, cylinder, and utensils to his parental house. The applicant further alleged that there was no proper arrangement for her residence at the parental house of the respondent and that her in-laws started pressurizing her to consume non-vegetarian food against her wishes. On 28.10.2023, the respondent called the father and brother of the applicant and expressed that he did not like the applicant and asked them to take her back to her parental home. On 28.10.2023, the father and brother of the applicant went to the house of the respondent and, after giving information at Police Station Sakri, took the applicant with them. Since then, the applicant has been residing at her maternal home. The applicant claimed that she is unemployed 3 and incapable of maintaining herself. It was further averred that the respondent is employed as an Eye Assistant Officer and is earning a monthly salary of Rs. 56,286/-. The respondent is also stated to belong to an affluent family owning agricultural lands and residential properties yielding substantial income, and he has no other dependents. The respondent did not file any written reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. despite being granted several opportunities. Consequently, by order dated 13.06.2024, his right to file reply was closed. His application seeking restoration of the right to cross-examine was rejected on 13.09.2024, and the evidence of the applicant was closed on 08.10.2024. After framing three issues and appreciating the material available on record, the learned Family Court recorded a finding that the applicant is not earning and is unable to maintain herself, and accordingly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 10.10.2025, which is under challenge in the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, Mungeli committed a grave error of law and facts in passing the impugned order by arbitrarily restricting the maintenance awarded to the applicant-wife to only 25% of the respondent- husband’s basic pay, rendering the amount wholly inadequate, unjust, and contrary to settled legal principles. The Court failed to correctly assess the respondent’s actual and present monthly income and erroneously relied upon outdated salary documents, despite updated income particulars and the respondent’s own affidavit disclosing his monthly income being available on record. He 4 further submits that the learned Court further erred in ignoring the overall financial status and sound economic background of the respondent, who belongs to an affluent agricultural family possessing substantial immovable properties and agricultural lands standing in the names of his parents. The Court also failed to appreciate the settled judicial position that a wife is entitled to the same standard of living as enjoyed by her husband, so as to live with dignity and in accordance with his social and financial status. He also submits that the impugned order is further vitiated as the learned Family Court failed to consider material facts on record, including the respondent’s illegal second marriage during the subsistence of the applicant’s marriage, pendency of a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC establishing cruelty, and the respondent’s own admission regarding the applicant pursuing a Ph.D. involving substantial expenditure. The Court also wrongly accepted the respondent’s false plea regarding his parents claiming maintenance, despite clear evidence showing that all family members reside together, thereby committing a manifest illegality and causing grave prejudice to the applicant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the applicant, towards maintenance, holding that the 5 marital relationship between the parties is admitted, applicant/wife is unable to maintain herself, and that she has sufficient and reasonable cause to live separately due to cruelty and neglect on the part of the respondent, who is a salaried government employee capable of earning and has failed to provide adequate maintenance, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 6. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil