1 2025:CGHC:28618 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 631 of 2019 1 - Saakshi Lal W/o Mikish Prabhakar Lal Aged About 26 Years Cast Urao, Residence Of Domanhil, Statff Quarter, Thana Chirmiri, Chouki Koria District Koria Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mansau S/o Mikish Prabhakar Lal, Aged About 2 Months, Legal Guardian Mother Saakshi Lal, R/o Domanhil, Staff Quarter, Thana Chirmiri, Chouki Koria District Koria Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Mikish Prabhakar Lal S/o Prabhakar Sunil Aged About 30 Years R/o Paadtar, Beside Of Maharastra Bank, District Baitul Madhya Pradesh., District : Betul, Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned counsel the applicants. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “Under the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner most humbly prays for the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 following reliefs:- 1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. 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 21.02.2019 for applicant no. 1 and enhance the maintenance of the applicant no.2 (Annexure P/1) 3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order in favor of the applicants as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cast.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that in the present case, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court seeking enhancement and alteration of the maintenance allowance to ₹10,000 per month from the respondent. The marriage between applicant no.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 14.12.2016 as per Christian rites at Village Domanhil, District Koriya, and out of the wedlock, a son named Mansau was born on 25.12.2017. During her pregnancy, applicant no.1 was allegedly subjected to harassment and cruelty by the respondent for money and a car, and he was also involved in an extramarital relationship, which forced the applicant to leave the matrimonial home in July 2017. Despite 3 being informed about the birth of the child, the respondent made no effort to visit or support the applicant. The applicant expressed willingness to continue the marital relationship, but the respondent showed disinterest and went on to obtain an ex-parte divorce. The applicant thereafter filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, but the Family Court Baikunthpur, by order dated 21.02.2019, granted only ₹3,000 per month in favour of applicant no.2 (the minor son), and denied maintenance to applicant no.1 without properly appreciating her evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the impugned order with respect to applicant no.1 and to enhance the maintenance for applicant no.2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and not in accordance with the facts and evidence available on record, and therefore deserves to be set aside with respect to applicant no.1, and the maintenance amount awarded to applicant no.2 should be enhanced. The Family Court failed to properly appreciate the material evidence and facts, particularly overlooking the genuine hardship faced by applicant no.1, who had to resign from her job on 28.11.2018 to take care of her child; however, due to an inadvertent omission, the relieving letter could not be submitted before the trial court, which is now being produced as Annexure B/2. The court appears to have passed the order mechanically, without due consideration of the circumstances of the applicants. Applicant no.1 is currently residing with her parents and 4 is financially dependent, which makes her entitled to maintenance from the respondent. The court has also misinterpreted the evidence and documents submitted by the applicants, leading to an unjust decision. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the maintenance needs to be reassessed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order passed by the Learned Family Court appears to be just, fair, and in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case. While the applicant no.1 alleged cruelty and desertion, the Family Court rightly took into consideration the lack of sufficient supporting evidence from her side regarding her financial dependence and the circumstances leading to her separation. At the same time, the Court acknowledged the responsibility of the respondent towards the minor child, applicant no.2, and accordingly awarded ₹3,000 per month for his maintenance, ensuring the child’s basic needs are met. The decision reflects a balanced approach by the Court in recognizing the child’s right to support while not extending the maintenance to applicant no.1 in the absence of adequate justification. 7. 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 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal