1 2025:CGHC:28627 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 392 of 2019 1 - Smt. Prachi W/o Gaurav Saraswat Aged About 32 Years (26 Years In Impugned Order), R/o Quarter No. 1/a, Street No.- 21, Sector -4, Bhilai Nagar, Police Station Bhilai Bhatti, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Atul Saraswat S/o Gaurav Saraswat Aged About 7 Years Minor Through His Natural Mother And Guardian Namely By Smt. Prachi, R/o Quarter No. 1/a, Street No.- 21, Sector -4, Bhilai Nagar, Police Station Bhilai Bhatti, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Gaurav Saraswat S/o S C Saraswat Aged About 39 Years Occupation- Export/import License And Granite Mining, Sarnam Mining Exports Private Limited, R/o H-33 A, Gautam Marg Shyamnagar, Kishangarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 11.02.2019 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.230/2014, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants and granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.5,000/- to applicant No.2. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No. 1 and the respondent married on 09/07/2010 following and fulfilling the hindu customs and rituals and the reception of the said wedding was conducted on 15/07/2010 in Sector- 2, Bhilai Nagar. At the time of marriage, the respondent husband was working in New Zealand and before the date of marriage, the parents of the respondent visited the house of the applicant No.1 and demanded a dowry amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- cash, gold ornaments, garments and a car from the father of the applicant No. 1. The father of the applicant No. 1 then agreed to fulfil the dowry demand by giving Rs.5,00,000/- as cash in engagement along with garments and ornaments and then only the marriage was solemnized between them with a promise of car at a later stage. Soon after the marriage, the in-laws and the respondent himself started committing cruelty on the applicant no. 1 with forceful demands of dowry and in the reception dated 15/07/2010, after the consistent threats & demands of the respondent, the father of the applicant No. 1 then purchased a car (Chevrolet Spark) along with further monetary amount for the transfer of ownership and other demands which was also fulfilled by the applicant No. 1's father through bank transfer of the 3 amounts so demanded. The applicant No. 1 was made to work like a maid in her marital home and the cruelty on the applicant No. 1 continued in New Zealand as well where she was subject to physical assault during her pregnancy and was also made to sign a letter for giving divorce to the respondent. In the year 2013, the applicant No. 1 and the respondent came back to India where she was subjected to forcibly leave the house of the respondent and was also cursed to have given birth to a blind child and demanded an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- from her father by making her forcibly surrendering her ornaments in her marital home. Upon the narration of the entire facts to her father by the Applicant No. 1, she was then called to her parental home where the phone threats and abuses were continued by the respondent and against the constant threats, abuses and beating for the demand of dowry, the applicant No. 1 had then made a police report in Mahila Thana, Durg u/s 498-A of IPC. The applicants No. 1 & 2 then presented an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the Family Court at Durg demanding a maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month (applicant No. 1) for herself and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month for applicant No. 2 on the grounds of fulfilling the day- to-day life, daily & monthly expenses and conveyance and educational expenses of applicant No. 2. The learned Family Court even acknowledged the fact that the respondent has not contested or disputed the fact that he is the owner of Sarnam Mining Exports Private Limited hence he is capable to grant 4 maintenance to the applicants and ordered an maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the applicant No. 1 and Rs. 5,000/- to the applicant No. 2 from the date of the impugned order dated 11/02/2019. Hence, this revision 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned First Additional Sessions Judge acted in contrary to the settled principles of law and wrongly computed the maintenance amount negating the fact that the respondent himself has agreed that the applicants are his wife and son and he is the owner of the Sarnam Mining Exports Private Limited. The learned trial Court failed completely to analyze the other documentary evidences on record, which proves that the respondent’s income is way higher than what is granted to the wife and son as maintenance amount negating the very expenses of day to day life. Further, the learned trial Court failed to consider the fact that the respondent has not been able to show that the applicant No. 1 is employed or working and is self-sufficient to maintain herself and her son which itself demolishes the defense story of the respondent. The learned trial Court ought to have considered that the educational expenses of the Non-applicant No. 2 will only enhance upwards as he will be proceeding in his education and the meager amount so awarded won't be sufficient for him to afford the expenses. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5 5. 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.10,000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.5,000/- to applicant No.2 observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent and perusing the impugned order and the finding 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil