1 2025:CGHC:35726 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 388 of 2023 1 - Smt. Damini Rajput W/o Mr. Amar Rajput D/o Omprakash Dhidhi Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Joba, Satnami Para, Ps Tumgaon District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2 - Isha Rajput D/o Amar Rajput, Aged About 18 Months Through Her Mother Applicant No 1 Damini Rajput, R/o Village Joba, Ps Tumgaon, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Amar Rajput S/o Rajkumar Rajput, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Joba, Ps Tumgaon, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Imlibhanta Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that, the Hon'ble court may kindly allow the Revision and enhance the quantum of maintenance awarded to the Applicants as-: 15000 per month to applicant no 1 and 5000 per month to applicant no 2 atleast, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for Applicant No. 1, the wife of the non-applicant, and Applicant No. 2, their minor daughter, on the ground that they were subjected to cruelty by the non- applicant and his family, were forced to live separately, and were unable to maintain themselves. The Family Court, Mahasamund, by order dated 04.01.2023, granted maintenance of only ₹2,000 per month to Applicant No. 1 and ₹500 per month to Applicant No. 2. Aggrieved by the meager amount awarded, the present petition has been filed seeking enhancement of maintenance. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there is sufficient material on record to establish that the applicants were subjected to cruelty and are residing separately for just and sufficient cause, and it was the legal duty of the non-applicant to maintain them. The maintenance amount of ₹2,500 collectively awarded to both applicants is grossly inadequate to meet even their basic day-to-day expenses. The applicant-wife has no independent source of income, whereas the non-applicant is an able-bodied individual, a law graduate, and has been shown to be working with 3 HDFC Bank. In addition, the non-applicant owns several acres of ancestral land apart from his employment and had sufficient income to maintain the applicants, as is evident from the fact that he kept them in a rented house and bore the expenses of marriage. The learned Family Court failed to consider these facts and also ignored the rising cost of living. Even taking the non-applicant’s notional income into account, the maintenance awarded is unreasonably low and deserves to be enhanced to a just, fair, and reasonable amount. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, after due consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and material placed on record, rightly assessed the financial status of both parties and awarded maintenance of ₹2,000 per month to Applicant No. 1 and ₹500 per month to Applicant No. 2 by its order dated 04.01.2023. The Court correctly noted that the non-applicant’s earning capacity and liabilities were limited, and accordingly determined an amount that was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The applicants failed to produce cogent evidence of the non-applicant’s higher income or 4 any extraordinary expenses warranting enhancement, and the order passed reflects a proper exercise of judicial discretion in compliance with settled legal principles. 8. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan