1 2025:CGHC:41298 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 720 of 2024 1. Smt. Priyanka Sharma W/o Tripesh Kumar Sharma Aged About 36 Years R/o Kayasthm - Para, Panchmukhi Hanuman Ward No. 06 Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.), At Present R/o Kashyap Colony Gali No. 3 Purana Bus Stand Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh), 2. Kumari Tanishi Sharma D/o Shri Tripesh Kumar Sharma Aged About 11 Years Minor, Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Priyanka W/o Tripesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Kayasthm - Para, Panchmukhi Hanuman Ward No. 06 Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.), At Present R/o Kashyap Colony Gali No. 3 Purana Bus Stand Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicants versus Tripesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shankar Lal Sharma Aged About 40 Years R/o Kayasthm - Para, Panchmukhi Hanuman Ward No. 06 Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.), At Present R/o Shri Sanjay Agrawal S/o Late Shri L.N. Agrawal Kusum Kutir Shankar Nagar, Godinbadi Ward No. 11 Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.18 15:08:30 +0530 2 aggrieved with the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, (C.G.) in MJC No.759A/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and directed the husband to pay of Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 3,000/- to applicant No.2/daughter. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, seeking a direction for the respondent/non- applicant to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month as maintenance, as he had neglected to provide for her. The applicant also filed an application for interim maintenance, seeking Rs. 20,000/- per month for herself and her daughter, Kumari Tanishi Sharma. Pursuant to the applicant's application, the learned Family Court issued notice to the respondent/non-applicant. Upon service of notice, the respondent filed a reply to both the main application and the interim maintenance application. Despite the facts on record, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 23.04.2024, granted only Rs. 3,000/- per month each to the applicant and her daughter, ignoring the fact that the respondent is drawing a salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month and also has an additional income of approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, 3 perverse, erroneous, and contrary to the evidence available on record. Therefore, the order deserves to be modified, and the maintenance amount should be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- per month for the applicant. The learned Family Court failed to properly apply the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is respectfully submitted that the applicants are living separately with sufficient and valid reason. The learned Family Court ignored the fact that Applicant No. 1 has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, expressing her willingness to live together, while the respondent/non-applicant has shown no interest in maintaining a matrimonial relationship. The learned Family Court also failed to consider the salary certificate of the respondent, which was exhibited during the trial. As per the salary certificate, the respondent earns Rs. 20,000/- per month. Despite this, the Family Court granted only Rs. 3,000/- each to the applicants, which is grossly inadequate and thus requires enhancement. In Para 35 of the judgment itself, the Family Court acknowledged that the respondent earns Rs. 20,000/- per month and owns agricultural land and other immovable properties. It also recognized that the applicants are entitled to enjoy a standard of living equal to that of the respondent. Yet, only Rs. 3,000/- each was granted, which is insufficient to ensure a comparable standard of living. Hence, the maintenance amount should be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- per month. The learned Family Court overlooked the fact that it was duly proven that the applicant No.1 are residing separately with sufficient reason, and the maintenance awarded is inadequate under the circumstances. The 4 Family Court failed to consider that the respondent did not properly deny the specific claims made by the applicants, and the Court also ignored the settled legal position under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which mandates maintenance in such cases. The Family Court should have appreciated that, considering the income of the respondent, the maintenance amount deserves to be enhanced substantially to meet the reasonable needs of the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, (C.G.) in MJC No.759A/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and directed the husband to pay of Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 3,000/- to applicant No.2/daughter, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, 5 and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this 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