1 2025:CGHC:27434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 579 of 2018 1. Nidhi Gangole W/o Sachin Gangole Aged About 30 Years R/o B L Namdev, Gitangali Nagar Gali No- 4, Kashyap Colony Karbala Road, Police Station Kotwali Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Lav Kumar S/o Sachin Gangol Aged About 1.5 Years Through Natural Guardian Nidhi Gangole, R/o B L Namdev, Gitangali Nagar Gali No- 4, Kashyap Colony Karbala Road, Police Station Kotwali Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Sachin Gangole S/o Satyanarayan Gangole Aged About 32 Years R/o G- 6, Tawa- Colony Timrani Tahsil Timrani And District Harda, Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Badruddin Khan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants as well as Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.25 19:16:32 +0530 2 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “ it is, therefore prayed that the hon’ble court be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 20.03.2018 and allow the rupees of 30,000/- per month as maintenance in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage of applicant No. 1 with the respondent was solemnized according to custom on 25.11.2011 in Timrani, District Harda (M.P.). After the marriage, applicant No. 1 and the respondent had one male child, who is currently living with the applicant No. 01. After the marriage, the behavior of the respondent was not good towards applicant No. 1. The respondent used to say that he married applicant No. 1 under pressure from his family and he was in love with another woman, with whom he also had a child. When applicant No. 1 confronted the respondent and asked why he married her and insisted that he should leave the other woman, the respondent became angry and started using abusive and filthy language towards her. Applicant No. 1 disclosed the entire situation to the family members of the respondent, which was earlier confessed by the respondent himself to applicant No. 1. However, the family members of the respondent ignored the concerns raised by applicant No. 1 and instructed her not to disclose these issues to her own family. The applicant No. 1 did not want to burden her parents after marriage and kept hoping that the respondent would improve his behavior. Bearing this in mind, she continued to endure the harassment and tried to fulfill her marital 3 duties. Even the family members of the respondent kept applicant No. 1 engaged in household work and forbade her from speaking with neighbors. Her phone calls were also recorded, and the family constantly feared that she would inform her parents about the conduct of the respondent. When applicant No. 1 had to visit Bilaspur, the respondent asked her to bring dowry from her father. When she refused, he beat her and even called their son illegitimate. When the father of applicant No. 1 came to take her back from the matrimonial home, she disclosed the behavior and dowry demands of the respondent. When her father confronted the respondent about his conduct, the respondent argued with both the father-in-law and applicant No. 1. The father of applicant No. 1 insisted that unless the respondent apologized in writing for his behavior, the applicants would not return to the matrimonial home. However, the respondent refused to apologize. 4. Since August 2015, the applicants have been living with the parents of applicant No. 1. The respondent has neither made any effort to contact them nor provided any financial support, despite being legally bound to maintain the applicants. Therefore, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Bilaspur. 5. The applicants had claimed Rs. 30,000/- per month for their maintenance before the Family Court, Bilaspur. However, the Court passed an order awarding only Rs. 6,000/- per month, which is highly inadequate. 4 6. Learned counsel for the applicants that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record, which was submitted by the applicants. The respondent admitted in paragraph 17 of his cross-examination that his family owns 100 acres of agricultural land as well as two large shops. It is therefore evident that the respondent receives an income of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) from agricultural land and family business. Additionally, he earns Rs. 50,000/- per month from manufacturing detergent powder. However, the learned Judge failed to appreciate these facts. He further submits that the applicant No. 2 attends school, for which a monthly fee of Rs. 450/- is being paid. Applicant No. 1 is a helpless and unemployed woman. In light of the respondent’s income, the maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month awarded by the Court is highly inadequate. He further submits that the learned Judge erred in appreciating the documents and evidence submitted by the applicants, which clearly establish that the respondent is financially capable of paying Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance. The circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the respondent subjected the applicant to cruelty. He submits that the order of the learned trial Judge is improper, unjust, and deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants in the present revision petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings 5 and documents appended thereto. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the applicants cannot be said to be shockingly on lower side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek