1 2025:CGHC:28622 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 471 of 2019 1 - Smt. Jayanti Bichhiya W/o Dharmendra Kumar Bichhiya Aged About 35 Years R/o Presently C/o Smt. Kumari Bai Pandey, Station Para, Railway Station Road, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Neeraj Kumar Bichhiya S/o Dharmendra Kumar Bichhiya Aged About 15 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jayanti Bichhiya W/o Dharmendra Kumar Bichhiya, R/o Presently C/o Smt. Kumari Bai Pandey, Station Para, Railway Station Road, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumari Bhawani Alias Bhumi Bichhiya D/o Dharmendra Kumar Bichhiya Aged About 11 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jayanti Bichhiya W/o Dharmendra Kumar Bichhiya, R/o Presently C/o Smt. Kumari Bai Pandey, Station Para, Railway Station Road, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Hem Kumar S/o Dharmendra Kumar Bichhiya Aged About 9 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jayanti Bichhiya W/o Dharmendra Kumar Bichhiya, R/o Presently C/o Smt. Kumari Bai Pandey, Station Para, Railway Station Road, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Dharmendra Kumar Bichhiya S/o Dhasuram Bichhiya Aged About 48 Years Occupation- Government Servant, Posted As N.C.C. Officer, Near Nahardev School, Kanker, R/o Janakpur Ward, House No. 208, Tikrapara, Kanker, District- Kanker, North Baster Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Sakshi Chabra holding the brief of Mr. Avinash Choubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27 /06/2025 1. Heard Ms. Sakshi Chabra holding the brief of Mr. Avinash Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 07.01.2019 passed by learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.104/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed to pay Rs.1,500/- (each) to applicant Nos.2 to 4 towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants have filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court below seeking maintenance of Rs.6,000/- for 3 applicant no.1 & Rs.3,000/- each for applicant Nos.2 to 4 respectively from the respondent totaling to Rs. 15,000/- per month stating that the marriage of applicant No.1 was solemnized with the non-applicant on 20.04.2000 as per prevailing customs and from their wedlock, two male and one female children were born who are now about 15, 11, 9 years old respectively. The applicant No. 1 was subjected to cruelty, intimidated her and has used criminal force upon ther on multiple occasions. When the she went to her paternal home for her father's funeral, the respondent assaulted her again and forced to stay with her widowed mother, Kumari Bai Pandey alongwith her children, applicant No.2 to 4. Being aggrieved by the same the applicants have preferred an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance alleging that the respondent is in Government Service and earns Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month. It has been further stated that the applicants had been forced by the respondent abusive behavior to live separately and despite having sufficient means to maintain the applicants, the respondent has neglected to maintain them without sufficient cause. Thereafter, the notice has been issued to the respondent and filed his reply denying all the averments made in the application. The respondent has stated that the respondent and applicant No.1 have contracted marriage and after the marriage, the respondent has kept the applicants with utmost peace, care and affection with him and wishes to continue to do so. The respondent has 4 expressed his desire to move in with the applicants and lead a happy and peaceful family life. On the aforesaid grounds, the respondent has sought for dismissal of the application. The Family Court after hearing the parties in the matter by the impugned order partly allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month each to applicant No.2 to 4, totaling to Rs. 4,500/-. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court erred in granting maintenance of Rs.1,500 per month to the children (applicant Nos. 2 to 4) while denying maintenance to the wife (applicant no.1) is questioned. The wife, being a homemaker, is allegedly unable to maintain herself, and the Court's failure to consider her situation is highlighted. Furthermore, the Court's inadequate evaluation of the evidence regarding the respondent's abusive behavior towards the wife is also contested. Therefore, order impugned is bad in law and the same is liable to be set- aside. 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 learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed to pay Rs.1,500/- (each) to applicant Nos.2 to 4 towards maintenance observing that the applicant No. 1 is residing separately from the respondent without 5 any sufficient cause, she is not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. However, applicant Nos. 2 to 4, being the minor son and daughters of the respondent, it is the moral obligation of the respondent as their father to maintain them. Considering the age and needs of applicant Nos. 2 to 4, it would be justifiable to award them Rs.1,500 each from the respondent, after considering all the above fact and circumstance of the case, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the respondent shall pay Rs.1,500 each to applicant Nos. 2 to 4, totaling Rs.4,500 (Four Thousand Five Hundred Rupees only) per month as maintenance. 7. Considering the submissions 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. 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 trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil