1 2025:CGHC:41313 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 581 of 2024 1 - Smt. Nileshwari Mrichande W/o Shri Ganesh Mrichande Aged About 30 Years R/o New Police Line, Near Adarsh Mandi, Joratal, Quarter No. B-2, Kabeerdham, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) Present Address Village Lilwakapa Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Praveen Mrichande S/o Shri Ganesh Mrichande Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Nileshwari Mrichande R/o New Police Line, Near Adarsh Mandi, Joratal, Quarter No. B-2, Kabeerdham, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) Present Address Village Lilwakapa Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bhavesh Mrichande S/o Shri Ganesh Mrichande Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Nileshwari Mrichande R/o New Police Line, Near Adarsh Mandi, Joratal, Quarter No. B-2, Kabeerdham, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) Present Address Village Lilwakapa Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Ganesh Mrichande (Constable) S/o Shri Kapildas Aged About 38 Years Village- Hardi, Nawagarh, Tahsil- Nawagarh R/o New Police Line, Near Adarsh Mandi, Joratal, Quarter No. B-2, Kabeerdham, District- Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /08/2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.77/2023, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No.2 and Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No.3, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 25.05.2007 at village Lilwakapa, District Mungeli, as per community customs, and two children, Praveen and Bhavesh, aged 7 and 4 years and studying in primary school, were born from the wedlock and are residing with applicant No. 1. It is alleged that due to minor disputes, the respondent began harassing, abusing, and torturing the applicant No. 1, including forcing her to change her lifestyle, subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty, and attempting to compel her to undergo an abortion, and on 29.04.2019, abandoned her at her parental home 3 without providing maintenance. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 CrPC claiming Rs. 15,000/- per month for applicant No. 1 and Rs. 10,000/- per month each for applicant Nos. 2 and 3, stating that the respondent, employed as a police constable earning Rs. 40,000/- per month, also has substantial movable and immovable assets, rental income of Rs. 30,000/- per month, and agricultural income of about Rs. 20 lakh per annum. In his written statement, the respondent denied the allegations, contending that applicant No. 1 left the matrimonial home without cause, misused his salary, and has sufficient means to maintain herself and the children, thus seeking dismissal of the case. The matter was referred to counseling, which failed, and after evidence was recorded, the Family Court found that applicant No. 1 was residing at her parental home without sufficient reason, dismissed her claim, and awarded Rs. 5,000/- per month each to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 as maintenance, which is inadequate to meet their food and educational expenses. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.04.2024 (Annexure A-1), the applicants have filed the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court erred in awarding only a meager amount of maintenance to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 and dismissing the claim of applicant No. 1 on the ground that she is residing separately without sufficient cause, despite evidence that the respondent was unwilling to continue the matrimonial life and had repeatedly 4 harassed and ill-treated her, including forcing an abortion without her consent, which amounts to cruelty. The trial court wrongly relied on the respondent’s false averments, ignored witness evidence and documentary proof of his sufficient means, including a salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month as a police constable and substantial agricultural income, and failed to consider that applicant Nos. 2 and 3’s educational and living expenses far exceed the amount awarded. The finding that applicant No. 1 has no sufficient reason to live separately is perverse, as the evidence shows she was ousted by the respondent and has no independent income. The court also failed to apply the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC, and therefore, the impugned judgment is unsustainable in law and the maintenance ought to be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- 5 per month to applicant No.2 and Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No.3, towards maintenance observing that the wife (applicant No. 1) failed to prove that she had been living separately from the husband since 2019 for a valid reason, so she was not entitled to maintenance for herself. However, since the husband did not dispute that their two minor sons (applicants No. 2 and 3) were living with her, therefore, the Family Court concluded that both the sons (applicant Nos.2 and 3) are entitled to maintenance from the respondent as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil