1 2025:CGHC:36123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 451 of 2023 1. Smt. Takeshwari Verma W/o Chandramani Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post Devada, P.S. Patan Kuthrel, Tehsil Patan And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Shreya Verma D/o Chandramani Verma Aged About 8 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Smt. Takeshwari Verma W/o Chandramani Verma Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Devada, P.S. Patan Kuthrel, Tehsil Patan And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. Rishabh Verma S/o Chandramani Verma Aged About 5 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Smt. Takeshwari Verma W/o Chandramani Verma Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Devada, P.S. Patan Kuthrel, Tehsil Patan And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Chandramani Verma S/o Chamru Ram Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Devri P.S. Bhathapara Tehsil Bhathapara, District Balodabazaar Durg, Thesil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.25 19:32:45 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.444/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. of the applicant No.1/wife and partly allowed with respect to applicant No.2 and 3 and directed the respondent/husband to pay amount of Rs. 4,000/- 4,000/- each (total Rs. 8,000/-). 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicants filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 14.06.2012 in accordance with religious rites and social customs of the parties in Village Devada, District Durg. It was further alleged that just 2–3 months after the marriage, the respondent and his family members began harassing applicant No. 1 for dowry. The respondent frequently consumed alcohol and, for trivial reasons, used to abuse and physically assault applicant No. 1. It is also alleged that the respondent willfully neglected to maintain and take care of the applicants. Therefore, the applicant filed the present petition before the Family Court seeking maintenance to the tune of ₹17,000/-. 3. The respondent appeared before the Family Court and denied all the allegations. He submitted that he had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in which an ex parte decree had been passed in his favour. On that basis, he contended that there was no obligation to pay maintenance to his wife. After considering the evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application by 3 granting maintenance to applicant No. 2 and 3 but rejected the claim of applicant No. 1, primarily on the ground that she was not willing to reside with her husband. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, and therefore liable to be modified. The learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the applicant, who has clearly proved that she was subjected to harassment and torture by the respondent for various reasons, compelling her to live separately from her husband. The respondent is earning a substantial income and has no other financial liabilities. Despite this, the learned Family Court has awarded a very meager amount of maintenance to applicants No. 2 and 3, and without sufficient reasoning, rejected the maintenance claim of applicant No. 1. Applicant No. 1 has no independent source of income, but this crucial fact was ignored by the learned Family Court. As per the general principles governing maintenance, the applicants are entitled to receive up to 50% of the respondent’s income. The learned Family Court failed to consider this and did not make any provision regarding the future marital and other needs of the minor son. Since the birth of applicant No. 3, the respondent has completely neglected his responsibility and has not provided any care or financial support to him. Considering the present cost of living and prevailing economic conditions, the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court is grossly inadequate. The mere existence of a decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be the sole ground to deny maintenance to the wife. Even after a decree of divorce, the wife remains entitled to claim maintenance under the law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the 4 submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the applicant No. 1/wife is living separately without any reasonable and sufficient reason. Therefore, she is not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent/husband. Hence, the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is rejected with respect to applicant No. 1/wife. Further, applicant No. 1 is residing with her daughter, applicant No. 2, Ku. Shreya Verma, and her son, applicant No. 3, Rishabh Verma. Since the respondent is the father of applicants No. 2 and 3, it is his moral responsibility to provide for their maintenance. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 9. Accordingly, the present 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 Preeti