1 2025:CGHC:40628 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 540 of 2024 1 - Smt. Gayatri Varma W/o Tovendra Varma Aged About 25 Years Caste - Kurmi, R/o Village - Lalpur, Mohalla - Bhathapara, Post - Chhapora, Police Station And Tahsil - Dharsiwan, District Raipur (C.G.), At Present - Mochh, Tahsil - Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Namrata Varma D/o Tovendra Varma Aged About 5 Years Minor, Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Smt. Gayatri Varma, Caste - Kurmi, R/o Village - Lalpur, Mohalla - Bhathapara, Post - Chhapora, Police Station And Tahsil - Dharsiwan, District Raipur (C.G.), At Present - Mochh, Tahsil - Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - Yash Varma S/o Tovendra Varma Aged About 6 Years Minor, Through The Father (Natural Guardian) Tovendra Varma, Caste - Kurmi, R/o Village - Lalpur, Mohalla - Bhathapara, Post - Chhapora, Police Station And Tahsil - Dharsiwan, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Tovendra Varma S/o Sadashiv Varma Aged About 29 Years R/o Village - Lalpur, Mohalla - Bhathapara, Post - Chhapora, Police Station And Tahsil - Dharsiwan, District Raipur (C.G.) ... respondents For Applicants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For respondents : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 1. Heard Mr. Anand Kesharwani, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and grant the maintenance as claimed before the family court in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant No. 1, wife of the respondent No.1, and applicant No. 2, their minor daughter, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent No.1 was solemnized in 2011 at Village Mochh as per Hindu customs, and they were blessed with a son and a daughter, the son being under the guardianship of the respondent No.1. It was alleged that after the birth of the children, the respondent No.1 subjected applicant No. 1 to physical and mental cruelty, demanded dowry, consumed liquor, assaulted her, expelled her from the matrimonial home, and neglected to provide maintenance, including for educational expenses, while also maintaining an illicit relationship. It was further pleaded that the respondent No.1 earns Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month as a trailer driver and approximately Rs. 2,50,000/- annually from 5 acres of agricultural land, whereas the applicants have no source of income. The 3 respondent No.1 denied the allegations, claiming he is not a permanent driver, earns only Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month, owns only 2 acres of non-fertile ancestral land in his father’s name, and also supports his ailing parents, further alleging that applicant No. 1 refused to live with and serve his parents. Upon framing of issues and consideration of evidence, the Learned Family Court, by order, awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month each to applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2, against which the present revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Learned Family Court is contrary to the settled principles of law, the facts, and the circumstances of the present case, and therefore is liable to be set aside. The maintenance awarded is neither just nor reasonable, as in light of the prevailing cost of living and essential daily expenses, the meagre amount granted is grossly inadequate to meet even the basic needs of the applicants. It is submitted that applicant No. 1 is not willfully residing separately from the respondent No.1; rather, the respondent No.1 himself, through his conduct and acts of cruelty, created circumstances compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. Further, applicant No. 1 has no source of income and is entirely dependent upon her parents for sustenance, whereas the respondent No.1, being the husband, is legally and morally bound to maintain her. The failure to grant adequate maintenance has caused grave hardship and injustice to the applicants, warranting enhancement of the same in the interest of justice. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, (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 upon a comprehensive appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, and material brought on record, rightly exercised its judicial discretion in determining the maintenance payable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court, after framing the requisite issues and evaluating the testimony of both parties, found that while the applicants had alleged cruelty, dowry demands, and sufficient income of the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 had effectively rebutted the claims of substantial earnings and established his limited financial capacity, further showing his obligation to maintain his ailing parents and the minor son in his custody. Considering the income, liabilities, and overall circumstances of both parties, the Learned Family Court arrived at a just, reasonable, and balanced conclusion by awarding maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month each to applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2, which is in consonance with the principles laid down for determining maintenance. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding 5 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