1 2025:CGHC:31288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 493 of 2021 1. Tamanna Bano W/o Mo. Hasnain Aged About 25 Years R/o Kalyanpur, P. S. Surajpur Tehsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 2. Saif Raja S/o Hasnain Aged About 2 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Tamanna Bano W/o Mo. Hasnain R/o Kalyanpur, P. S. Surajpur Tehsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 3. Aatif Raja Aged About 8 Months, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Tamanna Bano W/o Mo. Hasnain R/o Kalyanpur, P. S. Surajpur Tehsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Mo. Hasnain S/o Jaseemuddin Aged About 40 Years R/o Narayanpur, P. S. Surajpur Tehsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Sandeep Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.02.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. No.392/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.09 13:45:18 +0530 2 the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is directed to the respondent/husband that he pay of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant No.2/son and Rs. 2,000/- to the applicant No. 3/son, as maintenance amount from the date of order ( applicant No. 2 and 3 will be entitled to received the said maintenance amount only till they become adults.) and rejected the application with respect to the respondent No.1/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicants filed a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC, seeking maintenance. According to the applicants, the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent took place on 19.03.2016, and applicants No. 2 and 3 are their children. The applicants alleged that the respondent neglected them, demanded dowry, and failed to provide maintenance. They sought Rs.10,000/- per month in maintenance. The respondent appeared in Court, denying the allegations. After considering the evidence, the trial Court partly allowed the application, granting maintenance to applicants No. 2 and 3 but dismissing the claim for Applicant No. 1. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 16.02.2021 is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. The learned Family Court has dismissed the application in respect of applicant No. 1 in very hyper technical ground and also awarded very low maintenance to the applicant No. 2 and 3. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent left the applicant No. 1 due to doubt of the illicit relationship of the applicant No.1 with any other person, therefore, the finding that the applicant No.1 is living separately without any sufficient cause is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has awarded maintenance on very lower side 3 looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court has dismissed the maintenance in respect of applicant No. 1 only on the ground that the applicant No. 1 has filed the above case for demand of dowry. The learned Family Court should have seen that the respondent could not established that there is illegal relationship of the applicant No.1 with any other person which shows that the applicant No. 1 was mentally tortured by the respondent. The order impugned suffers from material illegality and deserves to be set aside/quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that it has been proved from the statements of the witnesses that the applicant No. 1 is the wife of the respondent and applicants No. 02 and 03 are their children but there is no sufficient reason for the applicant No.1 to live separately from the respondent. Hence, she is not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. It is accepted that applicants No.02 and 03 are children of the respondent whose age is 08 and 03 years respectively who are living separately from the respondent with their mother applicant No.1. In that situation, it is the moral responsibility and duty of the respondent to maintain applicants No. 2 and 3. Hence, it would be justified to get maintenance amount from the respondent to applicants No. 2 and 3 Therefore, the application is accepted in respect of applicants No.2 and 03 and the application is rejected in respect of applicant No. 1. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned 4 Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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