1 2025:CGHC:27439 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 426 of 2018 Jagdish Prasad S/o Mahabir Aged About 35 Years Cast Ahir, R/o Village Kumhari Sani, Thana Pasan, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Jagdish Prasad Aged About 30 Years Cast Ahir, R/o Village Funga, Thana And Tahsil Khadgva, District Koria Chhattisgarh. 2. Rajeshwar s/o Jagdish Prasad aged about 8 years cast Ahir, minor on behalf of minor Kudrati Valiya mother and guardian Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Jagdish Prasad, R/o Village Funga, Thana And Tahsil Khadgva, District Koria Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikash Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel, appearing for ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.25 19:16:32 +0530 2 respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “9.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. 9.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure P/1). 9.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order in favour of the petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cast.” 3. Brief Facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court for an enhancement in the maintenance allowance to Rs. 8,000/- per month from the applicant. The marriage between the applicant and the respondent No. 01 was solemnized in the year 2005 in accordance with Hindu rites. Out of the wedlock, two sons, namely Dhaneshwar and Rajeshwar, were born. The respondent No. 01 was allegedly ill-treated by the applicant and her family members, and without any valid reason, she left the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the respondent No. 01 filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Manendragarh, seeking 3 maintenance. The applicant filed his reply before the learned Family Court, stating that the respondent had left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and is residing separately without justification. Therefore, the she is not liable to pay maintenance. On 08.02.2018, the learned Family Court passed an order in favor of the respondent, directing the applicant to pay Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, without properly considering the statement of the applicant, passed the order in favor of the respondents. The learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence available on record while passing the impugned order. He also submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court suffered from factual and legal infirmity. The learned Family Court not considered the age as well as income of the applicant and wrongly passed the order in favour of the respondents, the impugned order is illegal, bad in law and deserved to be set-aside. For the reasons stated above, among others, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Koriya, (C.G.) in Misc. Cri. Case No. 97/15 vide order dated 09.02.2018. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 4 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek