Facts
The Applicant No. 1 (wife) and the Non-applicant (husband) were married on 07.03.2011 and have one daughter (Applicant No. 2)
Source reference: p. 2The wife alleged Cruelty and mental torture regarding dowry, leading her to live separately with her daughter in her parental home
Source reference: p. 2She claimed the husband, a Government Lab Technician, earns ₹60,000 per month plus agricultural income, and sought ₹40,000 per month in maintenance
Source reference: p. 2On 13.03.2026, the Family Court Raipur awarded ₹4,500 per month to the daughter but dismissed the wife’s claim, finding she lived separately without "sufficient cause"
Source reference: p. 3The Applicants filed this revision seeking enhancement for the daughter and maintenance for the wife
Source reference: p. 1-2Issues
1. Whether the Family Court erred in law by denying maintenance to the wife on the grounds of living separately without sufficient cause
Source reference: p. 3 / para. 42. Whether the maintenance amount of ₹4,500 awarded to the minor daughter was disproportionately low given the husband's income and status
Source reference: p. 3 / para. 5Law Applied
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates that a person with sufficient means must maintain their wife and children if they are unable to maintain themselves
Source reference: p. 2Under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., a wife is not entitled to receive maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason
Source reference: p. 3The Court also relied on the principle of judicial discretion in determining the "quantum" of maintenance based on the financial capacity of the husband and the dependency of the claimants
Source reference: p. 4-5Reasoning
The High Court examined the Family Court's findings that the wife had failed to prove justifiable grounds for living separately, thereby triggering the bar under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p. 4-5While the Applicants argued that the husband’s income (₹60,000/month salary and ₹12,00,000/annual agricultural income) justified a higher award, the Court found that the Family Court had properly exercised its judicial discretion
Source reference: p. 4The Court noted that since the daughter was a minor and a dependent, the legal obligation of the father was satisfied by the awarded amount, and no illegality or infirmity was found in the lower court's weighing of the evidence regarding the wife's conduct and the husband's means
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order
The Court affirmed the Family Court’s decision to award ₹4,500 per month solely to the minor daughter and refused to grant maintenance to the wife or enhance the existing award
Source reference: p. 5The revision was declared devoid of merit
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
SMT. PRITI CHOUBEYvsMAHENDRA KUMAR CHOUBEY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in