1 2025:CGHC:28598 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 772 of 2025 Yansh Sahu (Minor) S/o Shri Govind Sahu Aged About 4 Years Through His Mother Smt. Kavita Sao W/o Shri Govind Sahu, R/o-Q. No. 301, MIG-39, Sector- 29, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Govind Prasad Sahu S/o Pardeshi Sao Aged About 33 Years Address - Chief Executive Officer, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, CG Rural Road Development Authority, Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) Also At. Gram - Kaanji, Post- Amera, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr.Ashish Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : None present Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27/06/2025 1. Heard Mr.Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the non-applicant to press this criminal revision. 2. By this revision the applicant has prayed for following prayers:- “A. Call for the entire records of the case; and/or, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.30 10:58:36 +0530 2 B. Allow the present revision petition and set aside the impugned final judgment and order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Ld. First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case (M.C.C) No. 332/2022; and/or, C. Grant appropriate maintenance up to the sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the Applicant from the date of filing of application, in the interest of justice, and considering the factors laid down in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 or any other sum of amount as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, and/or; D. Pass such other orders, directions & reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Facts of the case are that the the respondent and applicant's mother are legally wedded husband and wife, and their marriage took place on 29.05.2017. The Applicant herein was born out of their wedlock on 30.05.2018. The applicant is currently residing with his mother Smt. Kavita Sao at her residence and is being taken care of by her mother. All the daily needs and expenses like food, cloth, shelter and basic needs of the applicant along with the educational expenses are being borne by his mother and the contribution of the respondent / father in the mother of the applicant and the respondent, both are Government Servants 3 wherein the mother with salary of Rs. 39,500/- is managing all the expenses of house including the aforesaid expenses of the applicant, whereas the respondent is earning a salary of Rs. 49,351/- and contributing a mere pay of Rs. 3,000/- as per the order passed by learned Family Court for maintenance of the applicant herein. The applicant's mother and father both are residing at Raipur (C.G.). 4. It is submitted that the present petition has been filed by the applicant through his mother Smt. Kavita Sao for seeking maintenance from the respondent for maintaining and managing the expenses of the applicant. 5. The fact leading to filing of the present petition is that immediately after marriage of mother of the applicant and respondent, the respondent started neglecting the mother of the applicant. The respondent herein did not contribute to the household expenses and never took care in sharing the household responsibilities. Whenever the Applicant's mother used to get sick, the Respondent never took care to take the Applicant's mother to any hospital and due to the said reason and conduct of the Respondent, the maternal family of Applicant's Mother used to take care of his mother during the pregnancy period of Smt. Kavita Sao. 6. It is submitted that the mother of Applicant Kavita Sao used to visit hospital with the assistance and under the care of her brother and mother and when the Applicant's mother called the Respondent to 4 attend the hospital, the Respondent assured that he would reach soon however he never turned up and due to his false promise the Applicant's mother had sent her brother and mother back home and soon after finding out that the Respondent would not be coming, as his mobile phone was switched off, the Applicant's mother somehow managed herself and took an Auto Rickshaw and came back to home facing huge convenience as she was carrying pregnancy. The aforesaid act of Respondent was not only inhumane but also beyond imagination as Respondent being the husband, it was least expected out of him. 7. It is submitted that due to continuous neglect by the Respondent and in light of his conduct which was causing harassment and serious inconvenience to the Applicant's mother, and due to the fact that the Respondent had shrugged of his basic responsibilities, the Applicant's mother started living separately from Respondent since March, 2020 and used to reside at her house at Nava Raipur. Even thereafter the Respondent never showed any intent to take up the responsibility of the Applicant and did not pay anything for the purpose of maintenance of the Applicant. In light of the aforesaid events and facing acute need for funds for managing the expenses of Applicant herein who was also studying at Bharat Mata Senior Secondary School, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur and the cumulative expenses for educational and day to day need of the Applicant was running in more than Rs. 50,000/-. 5 8. The Applicant, being a minor and having no means of subsistence and the mother of Applicant being a sole breadwinner in the family who was managing the entire household by herself with her limited source of income and having the responsibility to feed and sustain Applicant who was minor son, kept waiting for the Respondent to support and maintain a decent standard of life for the Applicant. However, seeing no improvement and support from the Respondent, the Applicant, through his mother, preferred application under Section 125 of CrPC before the Family Court, specifically pleading with the aforesaid facts and circumstances. 9. keeping in mind the Applicant's educational and day-to-day expenses which were essential for maintaining the basic amenities of the Applicant at the time of filing of the petition and considering the expenses the applicant claimed a maintenance amount of Rs 55,000/- per month wherein Rs. 15,000/- was sought on the count of basic essential expenses and Rs. 40,000/- was sought for the educational expenses of Applicant along with necessary proof of receipts of payment made by Applicant mother. It is submitted that the Respondent was posted up in hierarchy and was comfortably earning a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (approx.) per month (ie., Rs. 6,00,000/- per annum approximately) with no liability for maintenance of Applicant. 10.That, the Respondent filed his reply before the Family Court controverting the contentions raised in the petition. 6 11.After recording of the statements and upon adjudication of the matter and upon perusing evidence on record, learned Family Court vide final order dated 3.2.2025 recorded a finding that the Applicant being a minor son aged 4 years was incapable of maintaining himself. Further, the Family Court recorded the finding that Respondent was having adequate resources to maintain the Applicant and was having enough funds at his disposal. Thereafter, the Family Court proceeded to record a finding that the total expenses of the applicant's education is Rs. 32,680/- and thus the Family Court awarded Rs. 6,000/- per month to the Applicant and directed that out of Rs. 6,000/- only Rs. 3,000/- would be borne out by the Respondent by observing that it is the responsibility of both the parents to maintain their child and thus indirectly awarded Rs. 3,000/- against the Applicant's mother ignoring the fact that it was the mother of the Applicant only who was maintaining the whole expenses of the Applicant and Respondent was not paying anything or contributing by way of his share of funds. Moreover, the Family Court completely disregarded the factum of personal day-to-day basic expenses of Applicant which were running into more than Rs.15,000/- and only took note of the educational expenses. Thus the liability to pay the basic day to day expenses was also virtually fastened upon the mother of the Applicant, who was already taking care of the Applicant and thus awarded a paltry sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month 7 as maintenance to the Applicant, without duly considering the facts and evidence available on record. Hence, this revision. 12.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is against the settled principal of law as settled by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the series of judgments with respect to award of maintenance. He further submits that learmed Family Court has failed to appreciate that the factum of salary of the Respondent was already placed before the Family Court wherein it was clear that the Respondent was earning a sum of Rs. 49,351/-per month as against the salary of Rs. 39,500/- of the mother of Applicant and therefore it was clear that the Respondent was earning a higher pay than the Applicant's mother and thus was required at least to pay a proportionate sum of maintenance for maintaining the basic needs of the Applicant. Learned Family Court completely disregarded the day-to-day expenses of the Applicant while determining the sum of maintenance to be paid by the Respondent and the Family Court only considered the factum of educational expenses only upto the tune of Rs. 32,680/ and did not consider even a single penny with regard to day-to-day expenses of Applicant. He also submits that learned Family Court erred while holding that out of Rs. 6,000/- the Respondent would pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/ only as it is the responsibility of both the parents to take care of their child as the Family Court failed to take notice of the fact that the Applicant was residing with his mother Smt. Kavita Sao and therefore the mother of the Applicant 8 was already taking care of the day to day needs of the Applicant and was maintaining the Applicant and instead it was the Respondent who had completely shrugged off his responsibility to maintain the Applicant due to which the application was preferred by the Applicant before the Family Court and thus there was no occasion much less justification before the Family Court to award maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- out of which only Rs. 3,000/- was to be paid by the Respondent and remaining Rs. 3,000/- was to be paid by mother of Applicant. The aforesaid approach was contrary to the pleading as no petition for maintenance against the mother was filed and learned Family Court erred in granting only partial amount to the Applicant. He contended that learned Family Court has failed to consider the fact that the Applicant being a minor of 4 years had no means/source of earning & was dependent on her mother, who with her limited source of income was taking care of the day to day and educational expenses of the Applicant and therefore the Family Court ought to have considered that the Respondent having higher income than mother, and with no contribution in the maintenance of the Applicant, ought to have been directed to pay an appropriate sum of maintenance instead of a paltry sum of Rs, 3,000/ which would not even fulfill the basic needs of Applicant. As such, the revision deserves to be allowed and enhanced the maintenance amount upto Rs.15,000/- per month. 13. None present for the respondent to press this revision petition. 9 14.I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order. 15.From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has observed that the responsibility of children lies with both the parents. Thus, the responsibility of maintenance of applicant minor Yansh Sahu lies both the applicant’s mother Kavita Sao and respondent Govind Prasad Sahu. In this case, a copy of the receipt of Bharat Mata Senior Secondary School (Ex.P-3C) has been presented regarding the applicant’s expenses, according to which the tuition fee for June, 2022 is shown as Rs.5400/-. Documents regarding stationary (Ex.P-4C) in which the stationary bill is shown as Rs.380/-. Learned Family Court further observed that similarly, document (Ex.P-5C) has been shown of 2022 presented in respect of bus fee of Rs.780/- for April. Apart from this, document (Ex.P-7C) has been presented in respect of copy-books, in which Rs.2065/- has been shown and bill of Sadguru Garments has been presented in respect of Ex.P- 8C, in which Rs.1750/- has been shown. Apart from this, the bill of Krishna International Public School (Ex.P-10C) has been presented on behalf of the applicant, in which tuition fee of Rs.30,400/-, bus fee of Rs.8000/-, total Rs.32,680/- has been shown. The said bill is dated 3.4.2023. Thus, Ex.P-10C shows that the applicant’s annual tuition fee is Rs.30,400/- and bus fee is Rs.8000/-, thus the annual study expenditure is shown as Rs.32,680/-. Therefore, considering the education and 10 maintenance expenses of the applicant, a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.6000/- is fixed for the applicant. Responsibility of the son is on the parents (mother-father). In view of the above facts, it seems appropriate to get the maintenance amount of Rs.3000/- per month from the respondent to the applicant minor Yansh Sahu and granted Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. 16.Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by learned Family Court, I am of the considered opinion that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 17.Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Abhishek