1 2025:CGHC:34642 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 464 of 2024 1 - Smt. Aparna W/o Shri Pawan Sharma Aged About 31 Years R/o Street No. 13, Sector 3 , Professor Colony, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Master Kavya Sharma Aged About 06 Years Minor Impleaded Through Natural Guardian/ Mother Smt. Aparna Sharma, R/o Street No. 13, Sector 3, Professor Colony, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Pawan Sharma S/o Late Bhagwati Prasad Sharma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kharsul, Post Borai(Wrongly Mentioned As Potra), Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. Case No.716/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has partly KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 allowed the application of the applicants and granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- to applicant No.2. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No.1 was married with the respondent on 16.02.2010 and was blessed with a male child applicant No.2. The family members of the applicant No.1 performed the marriage according to Hindu rituals and sufficient dowry was provided at the time of marriage. After the marriage was solemnized as per the averments, the applicant No.1 was subjected to cruelty by the non-applicant and his family members for demand of dowry. It is further alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical harassment also. The respondent has left her matrimonial society due to his extra marital affairs. Ultimately due to the collective effects of the above mentioned reasons, the applicant No.1 was ousted from the rented house of the respondent situated at village Raipur, District- Raipur on 19.04.2015, since then she along with her son are compelled to reside separately without their being any source of income at her parental home. The respondent who is a person of sufficient means has deliberately ousted his wife and minor child and deliberately refused to maintain them. The applicant then preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. The learned Family Court after considering all the aspects has partly allowed the application filed by the applicant and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3 4000/- to the applicant No.1 and Rs.3000/- to the applicant No.2. The applicants have come up before this Court for enhancement in the maintenance amount. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, arbitrary and also at the lower side, hence liable to be suitably modified and enhanced, in the interest of justice. The learned Family Court has failed to applied its judicious mind and to take judicial notice of the fact that the respondent in order to defeat the claim of the applicants herein have a filed a false affidavit and had deliberately shown his married sister and adult nephew as dependent on his income, also stated that he is having an E.M.I. of Rs. 3,000/- whereas he is working as labourer getting Rs. 10,000/- and having agricultural land of 60 decimal. The respondent had deliberately suppressed his income from this transport business and income from selling and purchase of the lands as agent. The respondent has sufficient amount of earning and he is capable to earn Rs. 1,00,000/- out of his business excluding the agricultural income. Hence the amount of maintenance for both the applicants is liable to be enhanced suitably. Also, the applicant No.2 is child of growing age. The learned Family Court while fixing the amount of maintenance did not the judicial notice of the expenses towards his studies, coaching and other legitimate expenses which were required to be taken in to notice for a school going child. The 4 child/applicant no.2 is wholly dependent on her mother whose maintenance was earlier refused deliberately by the respondent. Hence the amount of maintenance granted to the applicant No.2 is liable to be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- to applicant No.2 observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. 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 5 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal