1 2025:CGHC:30960 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 645 of 2019 1 - Smt. Hema Pandey W/o Shri Radheshyam Pandey Aged About 45 Years R/o At Present Mohbhattha, Ward No. 06, Atal Awas Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Abhinav Pandey S/o Shri Radheshyam Pandey Aged About 21 Years R/o At Present Mohbhattha, Ward No. 06, Atal Awas Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Himanshu Pandey S/o Shri Radheshayam Pandey Aged About 18 Years R/o At Present Mohbhattha, Ward No. 06, Atal Awas Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Radheshyam Pandey S/o Mukta Prasad Pandey Aged About 48 Years Occupation - Government Teacher (Lecturer Panchayat), Government Higher Middle School Bava Mohtara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Seema Kaushik, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. Seema Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the Non- applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.) in Cri. M.J.C. No. 145/2018 and further be pleased to pass appropriate order for enhancement of amount in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court stating therein that she was married according to the rites and rituals with the non-applicant and from their wedlock, the applicant Nos. 2 & 3 were born, at present they were residing separately from the non- applicant. It is alleged that after consuming liquor, the non-applicant had committed mar-pit with the applicant No. 1 by using filthy language and harassed to her by physical and mental torture and he has also not provided general facilities, House Rent, Education Fees, Cloths etc. He had also harassed applicant No. 1 in the name of illicit relationship, on account of which, she has suffered mental harassment. Earlier the applicants had filed a maintenance case against the non-applicant, but on that case, a compromise have been done between the parties, therefore they were residing jointly, but 3 after some time, the non-applicant desert the applicants and not provided any financial support to them, despite having sufficient means and income. The applicants are unable to maintain themselves as she has no independent source of income or sufficient means of livelihood. She further stated that the non-applicant is a government servant and he is posted at the post of lecturer at Govt. Higher Secondary School Bavamohtara and he received salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month, therefore the non-applicant is a responsible and competent person to provide the maintenance amount and the applicants are facing great financial hardship for livelihood and education, therefore they filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance Rs.20,000/- in favour of the applicant No. 1 and 5,000/- each in favour of the applicant Nos. 2 & 3. 4. The non-applicant had submitted his reply and he had denied all the pleadings made by the applicants in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and he had submitted that he is posted on the post of lecturer and further obtained a personal loan amount from his department, therefore he paid loan amount of Rs. 17,299/- per month, therefore prayed for rejection of the maintenance application. 5. After considering the pleadings and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and granted Rs. 9000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the applicant No. 1 and rejected the claim of applicant Nos. 2 & 3, on the ground that they are major and under the law, the major person are 4 not entitled to maintenance unless they are suffering from any physical or mental incapacity and further ordered to bear Rs. 700/- for expenses of the proceeding. Hence, this revision petition for enhancement of maintenance amount. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the findings arrived by the learned Family Court are perverse and contrary to the material available on record as well as the requirement of the provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court had committed mistake on account of dismissal of claim of the applicant Nos. 2 & 3, the learned Family Court also not seen the actual fact of the case and also failed to consider the Higher education /maintenance of the applicant Nos. 2 & 3 which is not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned Family Court also failed to consider the that the applicant Nos. 2 & 3 are unmarried children of the non-applicant and they are student of Higher Secondary School, therefore the requirement of Education, Food, Cloth etc. of the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are genuine and responsibility of the non-applicant are necessary, but the non- applicant had failed to provide the General Requirement to the applicants. He further submits that the learned Family Court also erred in granting very low amount on the part of expenses for filing of the case, it may also be modified/enhanced by this Court. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the learned Family Court after considering all the 5 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs. 9000/- to the applicant No.1/wife and dismissed the application of the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that they are major, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 10. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal