1 2025:CGHC:34592 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 34 of 2024 1. Smt. Priti Miraniya W/o Shri Sanjay Miraniya, Aged About 27 Years R/o L.I.G. -06 B.D.A. Colony, Nutan Chowk Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Shrijanmaya, Aged About 04 Month D/o Sanjay Miraniya, Minor, Through The Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Priti Miraniya, R/o L.I.G. -06 B.D.A. Colony, Nutan Chowk Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Sanjay Miraniya S/o Shri Bhimsen Miraniya, Aged About 34 Years R/o Through Manoj Kumar Miraniya, Advocate, Near Gauri Shankar Mandir, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G. Office Address Assistant Professor Government Kirodimal Technical College, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. Also heard Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.22 15:22:46 +0530 2 prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be allows the revision and pleased to set-aside the impugned partly order dated 07.12.2023 (Annexure A/1) in which the maintenance of the applicant No. 1 was dismissed and the Hon’ble Court may kindly be grant a Rs. 15000/- maintenance to the applicant No. 1 and enhance/modify of the order of the applicant No. 2 in which the Hon’ble Court grant a Rs. 15,000/- maintenance to the applicant No. 2, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that That, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent. In the present case, applicant no. 1 is the wife of the respondent, and applicant no. 2 is the minor daughter of the respondent. The brief facts of the case are that after the marriage, the respondent and his family members started torturing the applicant on the ground of caste and subjected her to mental cruelty. It is further submitted by the applicants that within 10-15 days of the marriage, applicant No. 1 came to know that the respondent was previously married and had obtained a divorce before marrying the present applicant. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent and his family committed cruelty upon the applicant by not giving her any ornaments or other articles at the time of marriage. It is further submitted by the applicants that the respondent’s mother abused applicant No. 1, and therefore, on 25/08/2016, the applicant went to her parental home while she was pregnant. After the birth of applicant No. 2, no family member of the respondent came to see the child as she was a girl. 3 4. The respondent filed his reply denying all the allegations and stated that the applicant had gone to her parental home on 08/06/2016 to appear in her B.Ed. second-year examination. 5. Learned Family Court, without considering the facts properly, dismissed the maintenance claim of applicant No. 1 and granted maintenance of only Rs. 5,000/- per month to applicant No. 2. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order is bad, illegal, and contrary to law, and therefore, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Family Court, without considering the facts properly, has dismissed the maintenance application of applicant No. 1 (wife) and has granted only Rs. 5,000/- per month to applicant no. 2, which is inadequate. He further submits that the respondent is working as an Assistant Professor at Government Kirodimal Technical College, Raigarh, and is earning Rs. 70,000/- to 75,000/- per month. Therefore, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month each for applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2. He also submits that learned Family Court, without assigning any valid reasons, has dismissed the maintenance claim of applicant No. 1 (wife), which is contrary to law. The respondent has not proved his case, and without any justification, the learned Family Court has dismissed the maintenance claim of applicant No. 1. It is further submitted by the applicants that the respondent, apart from being an Assistant Professor earning Rs. 70,000/- to 75,000/- per month, is also a landlord. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submission made by learned counsel, for the applicants. 4 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to the applicant No. 02, whereas the application for maintenance was rejected on behalf of the applicant No. 01, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 10. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek