1 2025:CGHC:34634 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 533 of 2020 1 - Smt. Meera Prasad W/o Bikash Prasad Aged About 27 Years R/o House No.- 33a, Housing Board Colony, Boirdadar Road, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Master Aayan Prasad S/o Bikash Prasad Aged About 7 Years Through Mother And Natural Gaurdian Namely Smt. Meera Prasad- Petitioner No. 1 Herein, Resident Of House No.- 33a, Housing Board Colony, Birdadar Road, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Bikash Prasad S/o Bharat Prasad Aged About 29 Years R/o 103, B.P.M.B. Sarani, Bhadrakali, Police Station- Uttarpara, Hoogly (West Bengal) Pin- 712232 ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21 /07/2025 1. The applicants has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 31.12.2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.F- 2 79/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is noteworthy that the proceedings in this case were conducted ex- parte against the non-applicant due to his absence, and no response was filed on his behalf. The marriage between the applicant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) and the respondent took place on February 10, 2010, at Housing Board Colony, Raigarh, in accordance with Hindu customs. During the marriage, the applicant received various valuable gifts from her parents, relatives, and family members, and her parents also provided cash to the respondent according to their capacity. A child, applicant No. 2, was born from their wedlock. For about two years after the marriage, the applicant was treated well by the respondent and his family members. However, thereafter, they started harassing her for dowry and demanded that she bring at least Rs.7 lakhs from her parents for the respondent's business. The demand for dowry led to physical abuse, and the applicant was subjected to beatings, starvation, and severe physical injuries, rendering her unable to move. 3. The applicant endured the cruelty in the hope that the behavior of the respondent and his family members would improve in the future. However, when there was no positive change, she 3 informed her parents, who attempted to intervene and counsel the respondent and his family members. Despite repeated efforts, no improvement was seen, and the cruelty escalated to the point where the applicant was locked in a room, beaten, and threatened to be burned alive if she did not bring Rs.7 lakhs from her parents. On May 12, 2019, the respondent and his family members severely beat the applicant, took away her jewelry and gifts, and threw her out of the house with only one piece of clothing, threatening to kill her if she did not bring the demanded amount. Despite attempts by the applicant's parents to intervene, the respondent refused to take her back without the money. The applicant has no source of income and is currently dependent on her retired father, living a life of hardship and financial distress. She is also responsible for the care and upbringing of her 7-year- old son, including his education, which she is unable to afford due to her lack of resources. The respondent, on the other hand, is a prosperous businessman with a minimum monthly income of approximately Rs.1,25,000, and is capable of maintaining the applicants. Therefore, the applicants pray for a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.30,000/- from the respondent. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the applicants has directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 4 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the needs and requirements of the claimants for a moderate living vis-à-vis the commitments, earnings, and capacity of the respondent husband/father from whom the maintenance amount is claimed while determining the quantum of maintenance. He further submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that the maintenance amount should be sufficient to enable the claimants to maintain a standard of living similar to what they were accustomed to in the husband's household. The applicants should be in a position to maintain a standard of living that is neither luxurious nor penurious but consistent with the family's status. He also submits that the learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that when the wife claimed monthly maintenance and the husband, despite entering appearance, chose not to file a reply contesting the averments regarding his monthly income and also failed to establish his incapacity to pay the claimed amount through any evidence or material, the court was bound to draw a presumption in favor of the wife and should have awarded the maintenance amount accordingly. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC 5 filed by the applicants and directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance observing that applicant No.1 is legally wedded wife of respondent and applicant No.2 is his son. Furthermore, Arjun Singh (PW-2) corroborated the applicant's statements and, in his affidavit, has stated that the respondent subjected the applicant to dowry harassment and that the applicants are currently dependent on him, hence, it is evident that she has sufficient grounds to live separately from the respondent and she has successfully proven through her un- controverted testimony that she is entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent for herself and her son. Moreover, regarding the quantum of maintenance, the applicant has stated that the respondent is a businessman, a wholesale dealer in pan, tobacco, and other daily-use items, and has a minimum monthly income of Rs.1,25,000/-. However, no conclusive evidence or documents have been presented regarding the respondent’s income. Therefore, considering the nature of the respondent's work and the current circumstances of the case, the Family Court concluded that the applicants are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 6 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil