1 2025:CGHC:40547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 520 of 2024 1 - Pushpa Kosle W/o Ajay Kosle, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Setganga - Khaira, P.S. Fasterpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Astha Kosle D/o Ajay Kosle, Aged About 13 Years Through (Legal Guardian -Mother ) Pushpa Kosle, R/o Village Setganga - Khaira, P.S. Fasterpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kumari Akanksha Kosle D/o Ajay Kosle, Aged About 13 Years Through (Legal Guardian -Mother ) Pushpa Kosle, R/o Village Setganga - Khaira, P.S. Fasterpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kumari Anchal Kosle, D/o Ajay Kosle, Aged About 9 Years Through (Legal Guardian -Mother ) Pushpa Kosle, R/o Village Setganga - Khaira, P.S. Fasterpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Ajay Kosle S/o Dhiraji Kosle, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Senhabhata, Post Office Bijatarai, P.S. Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Also heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “it is therefore, prayed before this Hon'ble Court that:- 1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the complete records of the Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 36/2023, "Pushpa Kosle and Others Versus Ajay Kosle" in the court of learned family court Mungeli. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Annexure -A/1 vide order dated 28.03.2024 by suitably enhancing the quantum of maintenance compensation amount in accordance with law by graciously awarding the maintenance compensation amount to tune of Rs. 35,000/- from the date of institution of section 125 Cr.P.C. application preferred by the applicants; or as deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice. 3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any such order which warranted in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. along with an interim application for maintenance before the Learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 36/2023, stating that applicant No. 1 was married to the respondent 3 on 26.04.2009 as per Hindu customs, and out of the wedlock applicant Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (minor daughters) were born. It was alleged that the respondent abused applicant No. 1 for giving birth to girl children, demanded dowry, habitually consumed liquor, and thereafter contracted a second marriage with one Smt. Nitu Khande, while neglecting to maintain the applicants. It was further pleaded that the respondent, employed as Shiksha Karmi Class-II in Govt. Middle School, Uslapur, earns a salary exceeding Rs. 35,000/- per month, possesses 4 acres of agricultural land, a double-storey house fetching annual rent and mesne profits of about Rs. 4,00,000/-, and spends his income on drinking, whereas the applicants have no sufficient means for their livelihood. The respondent, while filing reply, failed to dispute his income and could not prove his contention that applicant No. 1 earns Rs. 15,000/- per month. Both parties examined three witnesses each and produced documents. Upon consideration of the evidence, the Learned Family Court, vide judgment dated 28.03.2024, awarded total maintenance of Rs. 9,500/- per month (Rs. 5,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,500/- each to applicant Nos. 2, 3, and 4). Being dissatisfied with the quantum, which is even lower than the interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- granted earlier by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, in Criminal Revision No. 18/2019 vide order dated 07.09.2019, the applicants have preferred the present revision seeking enhancement. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the Learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order (Annexure 4 A/1), granted an inadequate and meagre amount of maintenance, ignoring the fact that the applicants include three minor daughters who require proper education and basic amenities for a dignified life. The Court itself, in para 27 of its judgment, recorded that the respondent earns Rs. 43,760/- per month as salary, whereas the allegation that applicant No. 1 earns Rs. 15,000/- remained unsubstantiated; yet, despite this finding, the Court failed to award maintenance commensurate with the respondent’s income and the needs of the applicants. The allegation of the respondent’s second marriage with Smt. Nitu Khande also warranted due verification in the interest of complete justice. Further, the Learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, in Criminal Revision No. 18/2019, had granted interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- (Annexure A/2), and therefore, in equity and law, the final award ought reasonably to have been higher than the interim amount; however, the impugned order fell short of this standard, rendering it liable to interference by this Hon’ble Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District- Mungeli, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Learned Family Court, Mungeli, vide judgment dated 28.03.2024 in 5 Misc. Criminal Case No. 36/2023, upon due appreciation of the pleadings, oral testimony, and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in awarding maintenance of Rs. 9,500/- per month, comprising Rs. 5,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,500/- each to applicant Nos. 2, 3, and 4. The Court has duly considered the financial capacity of the respondent, the needs of the applicants, and the overall circumstances, including the disputed allegations of second marriage and other contentions, which remained unsubstantiated to the satisfaction of the Court. The quantum so fixed is fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the evidence on record, balancing the rights and obligations of both parties. 8. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan