1 2025:CGHC:40513 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1346 of 2023 Vikas Mishra S/o Vidyapati Mishra Aged About 39 Years R/o C.W.S. Colony Qr. No. 32, Tahsil- Bacheli, Post- Bacheli,, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Vandana Mishra W/o Shri Vikas Mishra Aged About 34 Years R/o Hatkachora, Vivekanad Ward No. 30, Jagdalpur, Distt-- Bastar, CG 2 - Vedant Mishra S/o Shri Vikas Mishra Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Vandana Mishra R/o Hatkachora, Vivekanad Ward No. 30, Jagdalpur, Distt-- Bastar, CG 3 - Ku. Bhavya Mishra D/o Shri Vikas Mishra Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Vandana Mishra R/o Hatkachora, Vivekanad Ward No. 30, Jagdalpur, Distt-- Bastar, CG --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate CRR No. 53 of 2024 1- Smt. Vandana Mishra W/o Shri Vikas Mishra Aged About 35 Years R/o Hatkachora, Vivekanand Ward No. 30, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2 - Vedant Mishra S/o Shri Vikas Mishra Aged About 8 Years Minor, Through Mother Smt. Vandana Mishra, Applicant No. 1, R/o Hatkachora, Vivekanand Ward No. 30, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Ku. Bhavya Mishra D/o Shri Vikas Mishra Aged About 5 Years Minor, Through Mother Smt. Vandana Mishra, Applicant No. 1, R/o Hatkachora, Vivekanand Ward No. 30, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ---Applicant(s) Versus Vikash Mishra S/o Vidyapati Mishra R/o C.W.S. Colony, Quarter No. 32, Tahsil Bacheli, Post Bacheli, District Dantewada (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been filed against the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In the present case, an application for maintenance was filed on behalf of the wife, Smt. Vandana Mishra on behalf of herself and her children. The learned Family Court, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.), vide order dated 02.12.2023, granted a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.9,000/- to wife/Smt. Vandana Mishra, Rs. 5,000/- to son- Vedant Mishra and Rs.5,000/- to daughter- Ku. Bhavya Mishra. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. 3 Vandana Mishra along with two children, filed Criminal Revision No. 53/2024, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Vikas Mishra, filed Criminal Revision No. 1346/2023, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced. 3. Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing for wife Smt. Vandana Mishra in CRR No. 53/2024 would submit that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance amount Rs.9,000/- to Wife- Smt. Vandana Mishra, Rs. 5,000/- to Son- Vedant Mishra and Rs.5,000/- to Daughter- Ku. Bhavya Mishra, ignoring the fact that the wife has to bear the expenses of their growing children and has to get them married in the future. The husband is posted at N.M.D.C. limited at Bacheli and earning a handsome salary of Rs. 1,28,760/- per month, but learned Family Court has assessed his income as Rs. 76,000/- P.M. (new salary). Further, the learned Family Court has ignored the fact that in this rising inflation sum of Rs. 19,000/- is very little to survive for three persons especially in case of living standard of Husband is very rich. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the children are studding in the school, hence he prays for enhancement of maintenance amount. 4. Per contra, Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for husband Vikas Mishra in CRR No. 1346/2023 would submit that the learned Family Court has committed jurisdictional error in allowing the 4 application filed under Section 125 of CrPC and the order impugned runs contrary to the oral and documentary evidence available on record and is perverse liable to be set-aside. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the school fees and all the other need of the children are already being fulfilled by the applicant- father and it is only the respondent No.1/wife who is not willing to reside with the husband as without any cause she has left her matrimonial house she is not entitled for any maintenance as awarded by the learned Family Court. Further, the respondent No.1/wife is able to maintain herself and she is having the source of earning and used to earn Rs. 30,000/- per month, this vital fact has not been taken care of while granting maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. As such, 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the wife along with two children before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance and after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 02.12.2023, whereby it was directed the husband to pay Rs.9,000/- to wife- Smt. Vandana Mishra, Rs. 5,000/- to Son- Vedant Mishra and Rs.5,000/- to Daughter- Ku. Bhavya Mishra per month as maintenance. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Vandana Mishra, filed Criminal Revision No. 53/2024, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost 5 of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Vikas Mishra, filed Criminal Revision No. 1346/2023, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revisions and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs. 19,000/- per month to the wife on behalf of herself and her children, I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to and are accordingly dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal