1 2026:CGHC:19899 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 584 of 2026 Shivam Madame S/o Late Nilesh Madame Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Durga Chaowk, Shanakar Nagar Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Heena W/o Shivam Madame Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bital, Police Station And Tehsil Daundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Advocate appears through V.C. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.04.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It Is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to Diminish the maintenance amount from Rs 3,000 Monthly to 1,000 Rs. Monthly and to modify the maintenance award dated 18.03.2026, Passed By Principle Judge, Family Court, Durg, District :-Durg, in Miscellaneous Judicial Cases No. 1442/2024 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 in Case of Smt. Heena Vs. Shivam Madame which is (ANNEXURE A/1), This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass Such order as it may deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant/husband, Shivam Madame, and the non-applicant/wife, Smt. Heena, was solemnized on 05.06.2023 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Village Bital, Dallirajhara, District Balod. After the marriage, the non-applicant/wife started residing with the applicant at her matrimonial home; however, disputes arose between the parties soon thereafter. It is the case of the non- applicant/wife that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the applicant and his family members in connection with alleged demand of dowry, including cash and household articles, and that the applicant, under the influence of alcohol, used to abuse and assault her, ultimately demanding an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for permitting her to reside in the matrimonial home. Due to the alleged continuous harassment, the non-applicant/wife left the matrimonial home on 30.06.2023 and has since been residing at her parental house. It is further stated that despite efforts for reconciliation, including social meetings and complaints before the Women Police Station, no settlement could be arrived at, and the applicant refused to keep the non-applicant/wife and failed to provide her maintenance. Accordingly, the non-applicant/wife filed an application seeking maintenance, contending that the applicant is 3 employed in the P.W.S. (Bridge) Department, Durg, and earns approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month. Per contra, the applicant/husband denied all allegations and contended that no demand of dowry or harassment was ever made, that the non- applicant/wife left the matrimonial home on her own volition, and that she is capable of earning, whereas the applicant is only a daily wage worker earning about Rs. 9,000/- per month. After considering the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record, the learned Family Court observed that the applicant failed to produce any documentary evidence of his income despite asserting the availability of salary slips, and accordingly, partly allowed the application vide order dated 08.11.2024, directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant/wife from the date of application, with adjustment of any interim maintenance already paid. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in not properly appreciating the actual income of the applicant, who, as per official records, is a daily wage worker earning approximately Rs. 10,094/- per month (around Rs. 9,000/-), as specifically stated in his reply, however, due to non- availability of the pay slip/muster roll at the relevant time, the said fact could not be substantiated before the Court below. It is further submitted that due to lack of proper communication and circumstances beyond his control, the applicant could not place the 4 muster roll/payment records on record during the pendency of the maintenance proceedings. It is also contended that the respondent/wife had insisted that the applicant reside at her parental house, which led to disputes between the parties. Further, it is submitted that the respondent/wife is herself earning approximately Rs. 25,000/- per month through tuition and craft work and is financially independent, which aspect has not been duly considered by the learned Family Court. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from non-appreciation of material facts and deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has not committed any error in passing the impugned order dated 08.11.2024. The learned Court has duly taken into account the marital relationship between the parties, the fact that the non- applicant/wife is residing separately and has alleged neglect and failure on the part of the applicant/husband to maintain her, and has also considered the rival claims regarding the income of the applicant. It is pertinent to note that although the applicant asserted that he is a daily wage worker earning approximately Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 10,094/- per month, he failed to produce any documentary proof, such as salary slips or muster roll, despite claiming their availability, and therefore an adverse inference was rightly drawn against him. The learned Family Court has, therefore, reasonably 5 assessed the earning capacity of the applicant and awarded a modest sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance, which cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary in any manner. The order reflects proper application of judicial mind, is based on sound reasoning. 6. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan