1 2025:CGHC:47494 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 813 of 2022 Sarthak Ratre S/o Shri Kamlesh Ratre Aged About 4 Years (Now 7 Years), Minor Through His Mother Smt. Sajani Ratre, W/o Shri Kamlesh Ratre, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 503, Deendayal Apartment, Khamhariya, Police Station Smriti Nagar Chouki, Supela, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Kamlesh Ratre Aged About 33 Years Office Address - V.E.C. Lakhanpur, Ambikapur, Assistant Professor, Mechanical Department, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. House Address - Ajay Electricals, Near Petrol Pump, Tilda Road Kharora Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rishi Sahu, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 be pleased to allow the revision of the revisionist and may kindly be please to enhance the maintenance amount awarded by order dated 09.06.2022 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Learned 2nd Additional Principle Judge Family Court, Durg (CG) in Criminal M.J.C. No. 680 / 2019 in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant’s mother, Smt. Sajni Ratre, is the wife of the non-applicant Kamlesh Ratre, and from their marital relationship a son, Sarthak Ratre, was born on 26.11.2015. It is alleged that the marriage between the applicant’s mother and the non-applicant took place on 20.05.2013. Thereafter, the applicant (minor son) was born on 26.11.2015 and presently resides with his mother. Initially, the non-applicant took care of both, but later he abandoned them without reason. He is working as an Assistant Professor in the Mechanical Department at VEC, Lakhanpur, Ambikapur, earning about ₹70,000/- per month. He has no other dependents, yet he deliberately avoids his responsibility of maintenance. The mother requested maintenance and school fees several times, but he refused. The applicant requires ₹25,000/- per month for education, food, medicines, milk, and other expenses. Hence, the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) has been filed seeking maintenance. 4. The Non applicant filed his reply whereby he denied all the allegations made by the mother of the applicant before the learned Family Court. He claims that he is still ready to keep and maintain the applicant and his mother in Ambikapur, but the mother refuses 3 to live with him or fulfill her marital duties, because of this, he has filed a divorce case in Family Court, Raipur. The mother is employed as a Training Officer at I.T.I. Power House, Bhilai, and earns ₹45,000/- per month, therefore she should bear the child’s expenses. The applicant (minor child) is 4 years old and has just started school (nursery). The non-applicant submits that he also has responsibilities towards his unemployed brothers and is burdened with a housing loan carrying a monthly EMI of ₹22,710. He further expresses his willingness to take custody of the child and provide for the child’s upbringing and education. It is also alleged that a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 06.02.2019, had granted 25% of his income in the case of Smt. Rashmi Tiwari vs. Dr. Sanjeev Tiwari in W.P. No. 227/05/2018. Hence, he prays that the present application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. be dismissed. 5. The learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, partly allowed the application filed by the applicant whereby directed the non-applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to applicant towards maintenance till majority from the date of filing of application and further order that if any maintenance amount be granted earlier shall be adjusted. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the findings of the learned Family Court is perverse, incorrect, illegal and contrary to the law, Facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence on record. The Non-applicant has filed the enclose he himself declared that his salary is Rs. 68552/- per month on July 2021 and 4 he has a house and agricultural land but the learned Family Court has only granted 10,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant, which is very less, this fact has not been considered by the learned Family Court and made a legal mistake. He further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in several cases that the maintenance should be 25% of income of the father but the Non-appilcant is not paying 25% of his income, which is illegal and need to enhance upto Rs. 25000/- per month. The learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance to the applicant till his majority in place of maintenance till the employment of the applicant, which is illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be modified. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and has granted maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to him from the date of filing of application. While granting the maintenance amount in favour of applicant, the learned Family Court observed the income, social and 5 economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be shockingly and said to be on higher side. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned orders and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal