1 2025:CGHC:34603 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 657 of 2023 Kartik Ram Netam S/o Dharamsay Netam Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Risdi Ward No. 32, Balko Road Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Sushila Netam W/o Kartik Ram Netam Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Baneya P.S. And Tehsil Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Gulshan Kumar Netam S/o Kartik Ram Netam Aged About 16 Years Through Local Guardian Respondent No. 1 R/o Village Baneya P.S. And Tehsil Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. Miss Arti Netam D/o Kartik Ram Netam Aged About 10 Years Through Local Guardian Respondent No. 1 R/o Village Baneya P.S. And Tehsil Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Varsha Sharma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Ms. Sareena Khan, learned counsel, for the the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.22 15:22:45 +0530 2 revision and set aside order dated 25.09.2021 which is passed by the learned Family Court Ambikapur, District Sarguja in case number M.cr. Case No. 54/2018 in between Smt. Sushila Netam and Ors Vs. Kartik Ram Netam, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month for each respondent from the present applicant. 4. After consideration, the learned Family Court issued notice to the present applicant; however, without providing any opportunity to the present applicant to file a reply, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order in favour of the respondents, thereby granting maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to each respondent, totaling Rs. 9,000/- per month from the present applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the she has no instruction with regard to the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek