1 2025:CGHC:12383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 343 of 2025 • Smt. Tomin Bai W/o Shri Teekam Markam Aged About 41 Years Resident Of Village Parsoda, Police Station And Tahsil Balod, District Balod (C.G.) • Tilak Markam S/o Shri Teekam Markam Aged About 15 Years (Now 19 Years), Resident of Village Parsoda, Police Station And Tahsil Balod, District Balod (C.G.) ... Applicants versus • Tikam Markam S/o Mangaluram Markam Aged About 51 Years Resident of Village Parsoda, Police Station And Tahsil Balod, District Balod (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Non-applicant : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 12/03/2025 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Court of learned Family Court, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Miss. Criminal Case No. 251/2023 whereby the learned court below has while passing the impugned order has rejected the claim of maintenance in respect of applicant No.1/wife and partly allowed the claim in relation to the VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.03.26 11:18:46 +0530 2 applicant No.2/Son and ordered for payment of maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month in respect of son, which is lesser to live his lively hood and for his education. 2. Brief facts of case is that the applicant No.1 and non-applicant are husband and wife, they were solemnized as per the their community rituals on 16.06.1998 and out of their wedlock, they blessed with two sons. Applicant No.1/wife alleging that her husband having some extra-marital affair and he is presently residing with that woman namely Madhuri Nayak and when she came to know about the said fact she raised objection but her husband got annoyed with the applicant No.1 and started beating her and also the stopped giving money for household works. He has deserted his wife and children. Therefore, the present applicants filed application under Section 125 of CrPC and the concerned Family Court rejected the claim of maintenance in respect of applicant No.1/wife and partly allowed the claim in relation to the applicant No.2/son and ordered for payment of maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month in respect of applicant No.2/son. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the non- applicant No.1 is legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and the applicant No.2 is son of non-applicant, therefore, he legally bound to maintain his wife and son. He further submits that the applicant No.1 is residing with her children but she is unable to maintain herself and children, whereas the applicant No.1 is not an earning lady and she is look after them but non applicant is 3 avoiding his responsibility. Accordingly the maintenance should be enhanced looking to the increase in prices of various commodities. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are other dependents on the respondent and school fees of petitioner No.2/son is also paid by the respondent, therefore, it would not be proper to enhance the amount of maintenance. 5. Perused the record of the court below, perusal of the order would show that the entire refusal to enhance the amount of maintenance is based on the sole testimony of the respondent. It is not disputed by the parties that the respondent is working as a APC Officer in CAF Third Battalion, Amleshwar-Raipur related to VIP Battalion, mana Camp, District – Raipur and earning Rs. 90,000/- and he is owner of one four wheeler Tufan and out of that he is also earning Rs. 50,000/- The learned Trial Court has reached to the conclusion that non-applicant No.2/Son is entitled to get maintenance amount Rs.3,000/-It is pertinent to mention here that the school fees of petitioner No.2/son is also paid by the respondent. However, the concerned Court cannot ignore that the inflation which is existing in the society and increase of the price index and various commodities and the judicial notice can be taken of that. Looking to the salary of respondent/non-applicant and his liabilities and inflation rate, it would be just and proper to enhance the amount of maintenance to the applicants i.e. son to the extent of Rs. 4,500/- per month, considering the facts in 4 entirety i.e. inflation of prices. Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondent shall pay an amount of Rs. 4,500/- per month to the applicant No.2/Son i.e. Tilak Markam from the date of filing of application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 6. With the above observation, the revision is partly allowed. 7. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE vaishali