1 2025:CGHC:36856 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 593 of 2023 1. Smt. Sheetala Devi Kaushik W/o Shri Ramkrishna Kaushik Aged About 27 Years Caste-Kaushik, R/o Village-Bhaismudi, Police Station And Tahsil- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village- Khaira, Tahsil- Nawagarh, Police Station- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 2. Ayush Kaushik S/o Shri Ramkrishna Kaushik, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sheetala Devi Kaushik W/o Shri Ramkrishna Kaushik, Caste-Kaushik, R/o Village-Bhaismudi, Police Station And Tahsil- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village- Khaira, Tahsil- Nawagarh, Police Station Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh 3. Nilesh Kaushik S/o Shri Ramkrishna Kaushik Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sheetala Devi Kaushik W/o Shri Ramkrishna Kaushik, Caste-Kaushik, R/o Village-Bhaismudi, Police Station And Tahsil- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village- Khaira, Tahsil- Nawagarh, Police Station Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Ramkrishna Kaushik S/o Shri Kishan Prasad Kaushik, Aged About 35 Years Caste- Kaushik, R/o Village- Bhaismudi, Police Station And Tahsil- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh Presently R/o C-1318, Police Line Durg, District- Durg Chhattisgarh Mobile No. 78692-24609 ... Respondent PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.30 15:00:58 +0530 2 For Applicants : Mr. V.P. Shriwas, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant/wife being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 22.03.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.363/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and directed the respondent/husband to pay of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1,000/-1,000/- to the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 till the attain age of majority (total Rs. 4,500/-). 2. The brief facts of the case is that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 24.04.2012 according to Hindu rites and customs at Village Khaira, Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). After the marriage, she began residing with the respondent and they lived together as husband and wife. Two children, applicant Nos. 2 and 3, were born from this wedlock. Initially, their married life was peaceful, but in 2019, the respondent began ill-treating applicant No.1, pressuring her to claim a share in her father’s property. He subjected her to cruelty at his workplace in Raipur and eventually ousted her from their rented accommodation. Consequently, applicant No.1, along with her minor children, returned to her parental home in Village Khaira and has since been residing there without any support from the respondent. 3. Subsequently, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the 3 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court, stating that applicant No.1 is a housewife with no independent source of income. The respondent, a constable in the police department earning approximately ₹40,000 per month, also owns agricultural land at Village Bhaismudi from which he earns additional income. Despite having sufficient means, he neglected to provide any maintenance to the petitioners, causing them financial hardship. The learned trial Court issued notice to the respondent, who failed to appear and was proceeded against ex parte. Evidence was led by the applicants, and after hearing the matter, the trial Court partly allowed the application, directing the respondent to pay ₹2,500 per month to applicant No.1 and ₹1,000 per month each to the minor applicant Nos. 2 and 3 as maintenance. Hence, this revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/wife submits that the impugned order passed by the Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), is bad in law, illegal, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, it is liable to be modified, and the maintenance amount is required to be enhanced. The learned Family Court failed to properly consider the evidence on record and wrongly awarded a meager amount of maintenance. After a few initial years of peaceful marriage, the respondent began consuming alcohol regularly, subjected applicant No.1 to physical and mental cruelty, and pressured her to bring a share of her father’s property. He eventually abandoned her and their minor children, forcing them to take shelter at her parental home. Despite these facts, the Court did not appreciate the gravity of the situation and granted an unreasonably low maintenance amount. Furthermore, the respondent is a government employee earning a monthly salary of over ₹40,000 and also derives substantial income from agricultural land. Yet, the Family Court overlooked these crucial facts and 4 failed to award adequate maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be modified, and the maintenance amount should be suitably enhanced to ensure justice and proper support for the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 22.03.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.363/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and directed the respondent/husband to pay of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1,000/-1,000/- to the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 till the attain age of majority (total Rs. 4,500/-), and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti