1 2025:CGHC:35730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 418 of 2021 1 - Smt. Sheetal Jain W/o Tarun Jain Aged About 41 Years R/o Block- 13, Plot-8, Nehru Nagar, West, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Arnav Jain S/o Tarun Jain Aged About 12 Years Minor, Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sheetal Jain Wife Of Tarun Jain, R/o Block-13, Plot-8, Nehru Nagar, West, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Tarun Jain S/o S.C. Jain Aged About 43 Years Office Address- Icici Bank, Near Shopper Stop, Andheri West Mumbai, R/o 201, Plot-34, Trimurti Tower, Near ICICI Bank, Gorai-Ii, Borwali West Mumbai., District : Mumbai, Maharashtra ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24 /07/2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 25.03.2021 passed by learned Third Additional Principal AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.1246/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an admitted fact that the marriage of applicant No. 1 took place with the respondent on December 8, 2002, and applicant No. 2 was born from their wedlock. The respondent works as a manager at ICICI Bank. The marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent took place on December 8, 2002, and applicant No. 2 was born out of their wedlock. The respondent shows no interest in the applicant's marital life, doesn't take her out for recreation, and doesn't even buy things for their child. He always comes home late at night, drunk, and behaves badly, which led to the applicants living separately from the respondent since October 27, 2016. The applicants have no source of income. On the other hand, the respondent, working as a senior manager at ICICI Bank, earns an annual income of Rs.36-38 lakhs. Therefore, the applicants are seeking maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month from the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply and denied the allegations as alleged by applicant No.1. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed the respondent to pay Rs.20,000/- per month 3 to applicant No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court dated March 25, 2021, is illegal to the extent that the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants has been partly allowed and a meager amount of maintenance has been granted to applicant No. 2. Furthermore, the respondent is earning a handsome salary of more than Rs.1 lakh. A copy of the pay slip for December 2019 is being filed as Annexure A-2. He further submits that the learned Family Court has not properly considered the school fees and other school expenditures of applicant No. 2. Copies of some of the receipts are collectively filed as Annexure A-3. Moreover, the learned Family Court has not considered the fact that there are expenses for applicant No. 2's coaching classes. Copies of some of the receipts for coaching fees are collectively filed as Annexure A-4. Therefore, the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded to applicant No. 2 is on the lower side, considering the price hike and the child's age. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per 4 month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance observing that the applicants have sufficient reasons to live separately from the respondent, given his cruel behavior towards them. Furthermore, the maintenance amount granted to the applicants has been determined after considering the social and economic status of both parties, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 6. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil