1 2025:CGHC:34582 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 297 of 2024 1 - Smt. Mithleshwari W/o Shri Gendlal Joshi Aged About 29 Years By Caste - Bhaddari, Occupation - Unemployed, R/o Village - Birebhata, Thana - Nandani (Ahiwara), Tehsil - Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.), At Present R/o Village - Lanja, Post - Kamta Thana And Tahsil - Simga, District Baoldabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Minor Veersingh S/o Gendlal Joshi Aged About 6 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Mithleshwari W/o Gendlal Joshi, R/o Village - Birebhata, Thana - Nandani (Ahiwara), Tehsil - Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.), At Present R/o Village - Lanja, Post - Kamta Thana And Tahsil - Simga, District Baoldabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Gendlal Joshi S/o Shri Churaman Joshi Aged About 33 Years R/o Village - Birebhat, Post - Bagdumar, Thana - Nandini (Ahirwara), Tahsil - Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the appropriate order of maintenance in favour of applicant No. 1 may kindly be passed and amount awarded vide order dated 27.02.2024 in favour of applicant No.2 may kindly be enhanced suitably looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as looking to present status of living, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant No. 1 and non-applicant was solemnized in the year 2013 as per the custom prevailing in the Community at District - Balodabazar and out of their wedlock, two male child and 1 female child were born two children's were resides with the non-applicant and 1 child is residing with the applicant No.1 who is aged about 06 years. After the marriage applicant No.1 started to resides at her matrimonial house along with the family members and after some time non- applicant started harassing her and on 09.02.2021 ousted her from the house on the allegation that she having illicit relation with one Bhola Sahu and the community meeting was called in which the dispute has not been resolved. Further it is alleged that the non- applicant has taken a sum of Rs. 60,000/- from father of applicant 3 for purchasing the vehicle and at the time of delivery the vehicle is sold thereafter again taken a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for purchasing the Motorcycle and again demanded money but the father of the applicant No.1 refused to provide the money then levelled the allegations against the applicant No.1 and also threatened for viral of the photo of applicant with Bhola Sahu who is the friend of non- applicant and beaten the applicant No.1 badly kept her in Room thereafter, she informed to her father about the alleged incident. The applicant No.1 filed the complaint before the Police Counseling Center Balodabazar where the notice issued to the non-applicant and he refuse to keep her further threatened her that if she went with him the non-applicant will commit suicide. 4. The applicants did not made any more application or complaint against the non-applicant and the non applicant file an application under section 13 of H.M. Act at Family Court Durg for obtaining the decree of divorce thereafter, she filed the present case for maintenance. 5. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 27.02.2024, whereby the non-applicant/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month towards maintenance to the applicant No. 2/son but with respect to non-applicant No. 1/ wife, dismissed her application. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court erred in passing the order impugned by awarding the meager amount of maintenance in favor of the applicant No. 2 and 4 dismissing the application of applicant No. 1 holding that she is residing separately without any sufficient cause. He further submits that the application of the applicant No.2 partly allowed on relying the false averments of the non-applicant though the allegations of illicit relation were not proved and only submitting of one photographs is not sufficient to hold the proved of illicit relations. The non-applicant threatened the applicant No. 1 since 2018, after consuming the liquor and ousted from the house in the year 2021 and since the date of left her at mayka did not made any effort to kept her. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to consider the statement given by the AW-01 in support of the application and also did not considered the documents produce and proved and on the basis of presumption recorded the findings in para 21 of the impugned judgment holding that the applicant No. 1 is residing separately due to illicit relation though there is no evidence in this regard the findings recorded adultery is bad in eye of law and the same can not legally sustainable. The learned Family Court has failed to see that the evidence in the case clearly proved that the applicant has been ousted by the non-applicant and she is residing with her parents and she has no source of income for daily livelihood. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to see that the non-applicant beaten, abuses and tortured her without any cogent reason therefore a report is lodge and the contention of the application is supported with the oral as well as documentary evidence. He lastly submits that the learned Family Court failed to considered that in a meager amount of Rs. 2,500/- it is not possible 5 to maintain looking to the rising prices of essential commodities and the maintenance amount is not in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court relation though there is no evidence in this regard the findings recorded adultery is bad in eye of law and the same can not legally sustainable. Accordingly, he prays for allow this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs.2500/- to the applicant No.2 and rejected the application of the applicant No.1 on the ground that she is residing separately without any sufficient cause, while passing the said order, the learned Family Court considering the overall circumstances, income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.2500/- to the applicant No.2, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 10.Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding 6 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. 11.Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal