1 2025:CGHC:40556 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 450 of 2024 1. Smt. Pushpa Nishad W/o Vinod Nishad Aged About 22 Years Resident Of Village Ratapayali, Police Station Dongergaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Humesh Kumar S/o Vinod Nishad, Aged About 04 Months, Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Pushpa Nishad (Applicant No. 1) ... Applicants versus Vinod Nishad S/o Kartik Nishad Aged About 26 Years Occupation - Businessman, Resident of Damoh, Ward No. 11, Police Station Birsa, District Balaghat (M.P.) ... Respondent For applicants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants as well as Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel, for the respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the applicants seeking following prayer:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.14 11:11:37 +0530 2 the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and enhance the interim maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court and modify the order to the extent of entitlement of maintenance from the date of application, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was preferred by the applicants, who are the wife and minor child of the respondent, claiming maintenance. It was pleaded, inter-alia, in the application that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 07.07.2021 and, out of their wedlock, applicant No. 2 was born on 03.03.2023. It was further pleaded that after the marriage, the husband, along with his family members, harassed applicant No. 1, and it was also alleged that when she was pregnant, she was neglected and was not provided proper medical treatment. Thereafter, she was treated at her parental house and, when she returned to her in-laws’ house, she was ousted. It was further pleaded that the respondent has a poultry farm business, rents out vehicles, owns agricultural land, and earns approximately Rs. 15 lakhs per month. It was pleaded that the child is a minor and that the wife is unable to maintain herself and her child, having no independent source of income or support. Hence, total maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs per month was claimed. The 4. The respondent filed his written statement to the interim application and pleaded that applicant No. 1 had threatened to commit suicide and to implicate him in a false case. He pleaded that he never neglected her and that applicant No. 1 used to leave the house without any proper reason. It was further stated that when she returned to her in-laws’ house, he had asked her to give in writing that she would reside with him 3 peacefully. He pleaded that he earns Rs. 6,000 to 7,000 per month as a driver, that he also has to look after his parents, and that he is ready to pay Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance for applicant No. 2. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the applicants’ claim. 5. Before the learned Family Court, applicant No. 1 examined herself as AW-1 and also examined two other witnesses and exhibited documents, while the respondent examined himself. The learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, passed the impugned order dated 30-03-2024 (Annexure A-1), granting maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- to the minor child from the date of the application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 30-03-2024 (Annexure A-1) is illegal to the extent that only meager maintenance has been awarded, while deciding the maintenance application, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that, in the affidavit, no information regarding the husband’s earnings was disclosed, which is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that, during the counseling proceedings before the learned Family Court, the husband had admitted and was ready to pay Rs. 5,500/- as maintenance to the wife, and thus the award of only Rs. 3,000/- as maintenance by the learned Family Court is wholly unjustified. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that documents relating to the land owned by the husband were on record, and even photographs of his poultry farm were part of the record. These materials ought to have been considered by the learned Family Court to assess the husband’s income, especially since proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature. Even as 4 per the minimum wages prevailing in the year 2023, the income of the husband, who claims to be a driver, would be at least Rs. 15,000/- per month. Learned Family Court did not properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties and has awarded meager maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- in the present situation, despite the high cost of living. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayers and submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the order dated 30-03-2024 passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that the application preferred by the applicants herein under Section 125 of the CrPC for grant of maintenance before the Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, was partly allowed, awarding maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- to applicant No. 2, a minor child. 10. Considering the evidence available on record and the pleadings of the parties, the order passed by the learned Family Court in respect of applicant No. 1 is just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. 11. However, so far as applicant No. 2, a minor boy who is under the care of applicant No. 1, is concerned, and further, considering the fact that upon a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the respondent as to whether the respondent had executed a compromise deed for payment of Rs. 5,500/- towards maintenance, he could not dispute the fact that the respondent had agreed to pay Rs. 5,500/- to the applicants towards their maintenance. This is also evident from the compromise deed annexed with the present revision. 12. In view of the above, this Court directs the respondent to pay Rs. 2,500/- 5 towards the maintenance of applicant No. 2, in addition to the amount earlier awarded by the concerned Family Court. The said amount shall be paid to applicant No. 2 through his natural guardian, Smt. Pushpa Nishad, with effect from 1st September 2025. 13. Accordingly, this revision stands partly allowed. 14. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Family Court, forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek