1 2025:CGHC:30183 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 632 of 2018 Purushottam (Wrongly Mention As Purupotam) Meshram S/o S/o Narayan Meshram, Aged About 36 Years R/o By Occupation Lecturer (Panchayat), R/o Bijlipara, Charama Post And Tahsil Charama, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Posted At Lecturer Panchayat Govt. High School, Markatola, Block Charama Tahsil Charama, District U. B. Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Ku. Kashish Meshram D/o D/o Purushottam Meshram Aged About 11 Years By Occupation Student Being Minor Through Mother Smt. Anju Meshram, W/o Purushottam Meshram, R/o Village Sahavada, Post Sahavada, Tahsil Kanker, District U. B. Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03 /07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 17.05.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Kanker, District – North Bastar kanker (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.12/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to applicant No.2 only towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants, a wife and her minor child, are governed by Hindu Law, having been married on 29.05.2006, as per Hindu rites and rituals. A female child was born from this wedlock on 25.12.2007. The applicants filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court, Kanker, seeking Rs. 20,000 for their sustenance. The Family Court partly allowed the application, awarding Rs. 10,000 as maintenance to the child (applicant No. 2) while rejecting the application of wife's (applicant No. 1). The court held that the wife had not proven sufficient cause for residing separately and had failed to establish cruelty or ill-treatment by the husband. The respondent (husband) had contested the application, denying allegations of cruelty and asserting that the wife was living separately without reasonable cause. The applicants challenge the Family Court's order, arguing that it was passed without proper application of mind and that the wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. Hence, the criminal revision. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the Family Court failed to consider the best interests of the minor daughter, whose future may be adversely affected if solely dependent on the mother, Smt. Anju Meshram. The court overlooked the applicant's limited and irregular income as a low-paid employee. Furthermore, the Court should have applied Section 125(4) of the CrPC, which dis- entitles a wife to maintenance, if she lives separately without sufficient reason, especially when the husband is willing to cohabitate. These factors necessitate a reevaluation of the maintenance award. He further submits that the maintenance awarded to the respondent is on higher side. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to applicant No.2 only towards maintenance observing that applicant No. 1 failed to prove her case in relation to herself, whereas she was successful in proving the case in relation to 4 applicant No. 2. Therefore, the Family Court dismissed the application in respect to applicant No.1. As for applicant No. 2 is concerned, considering the income of the respondent and the needs of applicant No. 2 for her upbringing and education, the demand for maintenance appears reasonable. The Family Court concluded that the respondent shall pay Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand rupees) per month to applicant No. 2 through her guardian mother, applicant No.1, during her minority and until she attains majority, gets married, or becomes self-sufficient, whichever occurs first. 8. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil