The High Court of Chhattisgarh has reaffirmed that a Family Court’s discretionary grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC will not be interfered with in revision unless there is illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. The decision upholds established principles on the limited revisional scope over maintenance awards and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in matters of maintenance adjudication.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR No. 1094 of 2025 Smt. Sunita Sao v. Jitendra Sao |
| CNR | CGHC010366222025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 03-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | REJECTED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (Ramesh Sinha) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure — Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether a revisional court can enhance maintenance under Section 125 CrPC solely on the ground that the quantum fixed by the Family Court is inadequate, absent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The applicant, legally wedded to the respondent, sought enhancement of maintenance awarded by the Family Court (Rs.3,000/- per month) citing the respondent’s substantial income and inadequacy of the amount. The Family Court found her abandoned based on a community decision lacking legal validity and concluded she was entitled to maintenance after considering all evidence. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh concerning maintenance under Section 125 CrPC |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts on the revisional scope under Section 125 CrPC |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reaffirms that mere inadequacy of the quantum of maintenance fixed by a Family Court—without evidence of illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error—is not a ground for interference in revision under Section 125 CrPC.
- Social or community decisions for abandonment have no legal effect on maintenance rights, which must be determined on their merits by the Family Court.
- Maintenance orders must be based on evidence; mere allegations (e.g., of dowry harassment) unsupported by formal complaint or proof will not suffice.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined the order of the Family Court, which had considered all evidence and the parties’ status before awarding maintenance.
- It found that the Family Court properly established the applicant’s right to maintenance as a legally wedded wife and acknowledged her abandonment by the respondent for no just cause.
- The quantum of maintenance fixed was held reasonable in light of the parties’ social and economic status; reliance was placed on documentary evidence regarding income and living standards.
- The applicant’s claim of dowry harassment was not substantiated by formal complaints or evidence.
- The High Court reiterated the legal principle that discretionary orders under Section 125 CrPC are not to be interfered with in revision unless there is identifiable illegality, perversity, or a jurisdictional error.
- No such error being found in the Family Court’s decision, the revision was rejected.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner / Applicant
- The Family Court erred by granting only Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance, which is grossly inadequate given the respondent’s substantial income from agricultural land and rental properties.
- The order failed to adequately consider the applicant’s statements and the respondent’s financial status (supported by Exhibits P-1 to P-3).
- The applicant, being entitled to a standard of living proportional to the respondent’s means, sought enhancement to Rs.20,000/- per month.
Factual Background
The applicant Smt. Sunita Sao, after being married to the respondent Jitendra Sao in March 2023 and residing at his home for approximately one and a half months, alleged dowry harassment and social abandonment by the respondent’s family. After a community intervention, where pressure for divorce was exerted and the respondent refused reconciliation, she continued to live with her parents. The Family Court granted her Rs.3,000/- monthly maintenance. She filed the present revision seeking enhancement to Rs.20,000/- per month on grounds of the respondent’s alleged high income and inadequacy of the maintenance awarded.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 125 CrPC: The Court applied and interpreted Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which entitles a legally wedded wife to maintenance if she is abandoned without sufficient reason and the husband possesses sufficient means.
- The Family Court’s order was scrutinized for legality, reasonableness, and jurisdictional propriety as mandated under revisional jurisdiction.
- The judgment reaffirmed that community or social customs do not override legal entitlements under Section 125 CrPC.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court affirmed established law on limited revisional scope over maintenance orders, following existing precedent.
Citations
- Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:45011
- CNR No.: CGHC010366222025