1 2025:CGHC:42992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 540 of 2023 1 - Smt. Pushpa Kujur W/o Shri Simpliyus Aged About 48 Years R/o Kaliba, Tahsil - Kunkuri, District - Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Minor Aniket Kujur S/o Simpliyus Aged About 13 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Puspa Kujur, R/o Kaliba, Tahsil - Kunkuri, District - Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Minor Ankita Kujur D/o Simpliyus Aged About 8 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Puspa Kujur, R/o Kaliba, Tahsil - Kunkuri, District - Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicants versus Simpliyus Kujur S/o Pitrus Kujur Aged About 50 Years Caste - Uraon, Occupation - Service Teacher (L.B.), Government Middile School, Belasunga, Block - Kunduri, District - Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) R/o Village And Post - Pirai, Police Station And Tahsil - Bagicha, District - Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 and suitably enhance the maintenance amount in favour of applicants, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, stating that applicant no. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and applicants no. 2 and 3 are their children, and that in the year 2020, the respondent ousted them from the matrimonial house, compelling them to reside in the parental home of applicant no. 1 without any source of livelihood. It was further averred that the respondent, employed as a Teacher (L.B.) and drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 46,000/-, failed to provide any maintenance to them. Despite service of notice, the respondent appeared initially but later remained absent, due to which the proceedings were conducted ex parte. Upon consideration of evidence, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 23.02.2023, partly allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 4,000/- each per month to applicants no. 2 and 3, while rejecting the claim of applicant no. 1 on the ground that she is able to maintain herself. Hence, the present revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, hence liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that applicants no. 2 and 3 are minor children who are students and are required to meet necessary educational expenses including school fees, uniforms, tuition fees, books, travelling expenses, as well as their basic needs 3 such as food, clothing and medical care, and in the present socio- economic scenario where the cost of living and prices of essential commodities are continuously rising, the maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- awarded in total is grossly inadequate for their survival and upbringing. The learned Family Court has further erred in ignoring the fact that the respondent is employed as a Teacher (L.B.) and is drawing a handsome salary of Rs. 52,552/- per month, with no other financial liability or responsibility upon him, and therefore is in a sound position to pay higher maintenance to his wife and children. The rejection of the claim of applicant no. 1 on the ground that she is able to maintain herself is wholly unjustified, inasmuch as being the legally wedded wife of the respondent she is entitled to be maintained by him and to live with dignity at par with the status and living standard of the respondent. The learned Family Court has failed to apply the settled principles of law relating to grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and therefore the impugned order deserves to be modified suitably by enhancing the maintenance amount and granting maintenance to applicant no. 1 as well. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicants being the legally wedded wife and children of the non- applicant are entitled to claim maintenance in accordance with law, and the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings and evidence, rightly held that applicants no. 2 and 3, 4 being minor children dependent upon their father for education, food, clothing and day-to-day expenses, are entitled to receive maintenance and accordingly awarded Rs. 4,000/- each per month in their favour. At the same time, the learned Family Court has rightly rejected the claim of applicant no. 1 by holding that she is capable of maintaining herself, and therefore not entitled to separate maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The order thus balances the rights and obligations of both parties, ensuring proper support for the minor children while preventing unjust enrichment of applicant no. 1, and hence the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 is just, proper, reasoned and in accordance with law. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan