##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:5567

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRR No. 368 of 2024

Priyanka Tiwari W/o- Suraj Tiwari, Aged About 25 Years R/o Through-

Roopnarayan Tiwari,qua. No. 12,pension- Bada, Behind Holi Cross-

School, Azad Chowk, Raipur,district- Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant

versus

Suraj Tiwari S/o Anirudha Tiwari, Aged About 28 Years R/o- Professor

Colony, Sector- 1, Gali No. 4,qua. No. 252/1, P.S.- Punrani Basti,

Raipur,district- Raipur- Chhattisgarh.

... Non-Applicant

For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate

For Non-Applicant : Ms. Ruchi Nagar Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

31.01.2026

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the

following prayer:

“It is therefore prayed that the petition may be

allow and the order impugned passed by the

court bellow in M.C.C. no. 65/2020 be

modified and the 4 amount of maintenance be

enhanced up to 50% of Non- applicant's

gross income from all sources that is up to

RAHUL

DEWANGAN

Digitally

signed by

RAHUL

DEWANGAN

2

1,00,000/- per month, in the interest of

justice.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant–wife and the

non-applicant–husband were married on 22.04.2016 according to

Hindu customs and have no children. After marriage, the applicant

resided with the non-applicant and his father and younger sister-in-

law, during which she was subjected to harassment, taunting, and

physical abuse by the father-in-law over dowry demands, including

an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, and her stridhan was retained by the

non-applicant. Despite temporarily returning to her parental home

due to repeated cruelty, she was persuaded to go back, but

continued to face humiliation and was ultimately forced to live

separately, with all her expenses borne by her father. The applicant

reported the matter to Mahila Thana, Raipur, resulting in

registration of a case under Sections 498A/34 IPC. The non-

applicant is engaged in a building material business, ‘Tiwari

Construction,’ earning approximately Rs.2,00,000/- per month,

whereas the applicant has no independent source of income. The

learned Family Court, after examining the evidence and applying

judicial mind, allowed the maintenance application under Section

125 Cr.P.C., granting Rs.5,000/- per month, having earlier provided

Rs.10,000/- as interim maintenance. Considering the non-

applicant’s income, inflation, and prior interim maintenance, the

applicant contends she is entitled to an enhancement of

maintenance, and therefore files the present petition.

3

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned

order of the learned Family Court is bad in law and contrary to

settled legal principles. It is submitted that the

non-applicant/husband in his afÏdavit and court statements initially

denied owning a car and operating a business under the name of

Suraj Traders, but later admitted the same when confronted with

documents. Despite this, he failed to produce any supporting

documents such as ITRs or corroboration for his claim of payments

to the applicant/wife, and the learned trial court erroneously relied

on his statements, reducing the maintenance granted earlier as

interim maintenance from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, which is

unsustainable. The non-applicant is earning substantial income,

approximately Rs.2,00,000/- per month, owns vehicles, and is a

member of the building material suppliers’ association in Raipur,

whereas the applicant/wife is incapable of earning or maintaining

herself, as established by her evidence and unchallenged by the

non-applicant. The learned Family Court failed to properly apply its

judicial mind and the principles laid down in Rajnesh vs Neha, and

in view of the non-applicant’s actual income and resources, the

maintenance ought to be enhanced appropriately, and the reduction

from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- is arbitrary and requires rectification.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant

opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant

and supports