1 2025:CGHC:37954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 255 of 2021 1. Smt. Rachna James, W/o Rohit Sumit James, Aged About 32 Years R/o Street No. 1, Aashish Nagar, (West), Risali, Police Station Newai, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2. Anya James, D/o Rohit Sumit James, Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Her Mother Rachna James (Applicant No.1) R/o Street No. 1, Aashish Nagar, (West), Risali, Police Station Newai, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Rohit Sumit James, S/o Surendra James, Aged About 33 Years Permanent R/o 123 Church Compound, Barariyapura Road Chindwada, (M.P.) Present R/o Joy Residency, Flat No. 302, Mangla, Kududand Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Suraj Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arjun Yadav For Respondent : Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Suraj Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Arjun Yadav, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. B.P. Rao, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.04 11:03:49 +0530 2 prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2021 and the amount of maintenance be enhanced from Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the applicants for their livelihood, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicants herein filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Durg (C.G.) seeking grant of maintenance. The marriage of applicant No. 1 was solemnized with the respondent on 21.10.2012 according to Christian customs and rites. At the time of marriage, the parents of applicant No. 1 had given gold jewellery, cash, and furniture. After the marriage, applicant No. 1 went to the respondent’s house, and they began their marital life. During the course of their wedlock, the applicant gave birth to a girl child, who is applicant No. 2 as referred above. During the span of their married life, the respondent was found to be involved in an extra- marital affair with a woman named Anjali Daniel. The respondent used to have lengthy telephonic conversations with her and shared inappropriate messages and photos, which he later deleted. As a result, disputes arose between the parties, and the respondent began physically assaulting both applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2. Unable to bear the cruelty, applicant No. 1 returned to her parental home in Bhilai on 06.03.2018 along with her father. Applicant No. 1 is unemployed and currently residing at her parental home with her daughter. Her father is a retired senior citizen. Applicant No. 1 has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- for herself and her daughter. 3 4. The respondent is employed at World Vision, Bilaspur, and is presently earning a monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/-. He has no dependents, as his parents are financially sound. However, the learned Family Court has granted a maintenance amount of only Rs. 4,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- to applicant No. 2, i.e., a total of Rs. 7,000/-, which is inadequate in the current scenario. The daughter is a student and is pursuing her studies. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the the impugned order dated 06.03.2021 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. He submits that learned Family Court has mis-appreciated and misapprehended the entire documentary and oral evidence on record while passing the impugned order, which is liable to be modified. The maintenance amount ought to have been granted at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- each in favour of the applicants. Learned Family Court ought to have held that applicant No. 1 has no independent source of income, and applicant No. 2 is a student. The father of applicant No. 1 is a retired employee and cannot support both of them financially. He further submits that learned Family Court ought to have considered that the respondent is presently earning Rs. 50,000/- per month and is financially capable of bearing the expenses of Rs. 20,000/- for the applicants. Furthermore, the in-laws of applicant No. 1 are financially sound and are not dependent on the respondent. He submits that in view of the above circumstances, the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission and prayers made by learned counsel for the applicants. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- to applicant No. 2, observing the income, social and economic status of both parties and the current price index, which cannot be said to be on the lower side 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek