1 2025:CGHC:11742 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 327 of 2025 • Rakesh Tiwari S/o Shri Poshangilal Tiwari Aged About 50 Years Occupation Farmer, Shopkeeper, R/o Golhapara, Chouki Chilfi, P.S. And Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Savita Tiwari W/o Shri Rakesh Tiwari Aged About 45 Years Occupation Homemaker At Balwadi, R/o Kawardha, Near Math Mandir, P.S. And Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 2. Aparna D/o Shri Rakesh Tiwari Aged About 12 Years Minor (Aparna And Rishabh) Through Guardian Mother, Savita Tiwari, W/o Shri Rakesh Tiwari, R/o Kawardha, Near Math Mandir, P.S. And Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 3. Rishabh Tiwari S/o Shri Rakesh Tiwari Aged About 10 Years Minor (Aparna And Rishabh) Through Guardian Mother, Savita Tiwari, W/o Shri Rakesh Tiwari, R/o Kawardha, Near Math Mandir, P.S. And Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : None. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 10/03/2025 1. The present revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act has been preferred by the applicant assailing the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned Family Court Kawardha, Chhattisgarh, in Misc. Judicial Case No. 168/2022 whereby an appeal under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondent No.1/Wife has been partly allowed and granted Rs. 2,000/- each to Non-applicants No.2 and 3 (minors). 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that earlier occasion, the respondent No. -1 had filed application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Kawardha (C.G.), and the same was partly allowed on 05.12.2024 and granted Rs. 2,000/- each to minor daughters of applicant per month as maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is having 1.5 Acre of agricultural land and earning approximately Rs. 70 to 80 thousand annually which comes to Rs. 6 to 7 thousand per month. It would be very difficult for the applicant to survive with as he has to look after her old and ailing mother also. The learned Court 3 below have granted total Rs. 8,000/- maintenance to the Non-applicants No. 2 and 3 and major daughters but the applicant is earning only Rs. 6 to 7 thousand so how it would be possible for the applicant to give 8,000/- maintenance per month, which is beyond the capacity of the applicant. He would further submits that the apart from the agricultural income he does not have any other source of income and also he is also having a Kisan Credit Card loan of Rs. 1,75,000/-, which he has to pay monthly installments, therefore, he prays for quashment of the impugned order dated 05.12.2024. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 5. On perusal of records, it transpires the fact that the applicant/Husband filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Family Court, Mungeli bearing Civil Suit No. 28A/2023 “Rakesh Tiwari vs. Savita Tiwari”, in which said application was allowed and directed the non-applicant No.1 to restore the conjugal rights within 2 months from the date of order. Thereafter, respondent No.1/Wife had filed application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Kawardha (C.G.), and the same was partly allowed on 05.12.2024 and granted Rs.2,000/- each to 4 Non-applicants No.2 and 3 per month as maintenance. 6. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the facts that the respondent No. 1 had to leave her matrimonial house and had to reside with her children separately and the respondent No. 2 and 3 are studying and keeping in view the time elapsed and the increase in inflation after the said order 05.12.2024 because of which minor children are facing great hardships and is unable to maintain themselves, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the impugned order and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- each to Non-applicants No.2 and 3, in which there is no need for interference. 7. This Court of the considered view, there is neither illegality nor perversity in the order impugned and also there is no judicial error committed by the learned Family Court. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE vaishali VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.04.21 14:03:36 +0530