1 2025:CGHC:8710 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 45 of 2025 1 - Smt. Harsha Harchandani W/o Shri Deepak Harchandani Aged About 40. 2 - Harshit Harchandani S/o Shri Deepak Harchandani Aged About 15 Years Minor Through guardian mother Smt. Harsha Harchandani. 3 - Ansh Harchandani S/o Shri Deepak Harchandani Aged About 8 Years, Minor Through guardian mother Smt. Harsha Harchandani. All are residing At House No. 44, Sindhi Colony, Raipurnaka, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Deepak Harchandani S/o Late Shri Kishore Harchandani R/o E-2/36, Beside Dr. Adwani, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19.02.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 4. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order 2 dated 20/11/2024 passed by learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, Chhattisgarh in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1199 of 2021, whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants has been rejected. 5. Facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that applicant No.1 and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife, their marriage was solemnized on 14/02/2009 at Raipur as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Applicant Nos.2 & 3 are their children. Since their marriage, respondent/husband and his family members use to torture and harass the applicant No.1/wife to fulfill their illegal demands of dowry. Due to torture and harassment, applicant/wife made a complaint on 04/07/2021 before PS-New Rajendra Nagar and, thereafter, on 12/08/2021 she also lodged a complaint against her brother-in-law namely Bharat Harchandani who had committed sexual assault on her minor children. Respondent/husband and his family members started pressuring the applicants to compromise and withdraw the said complaints and upon refusal the same, they have been thrown out and all their belongings have been kept by respondent and his family members. Since then, applicants have become unable to maintain themselves, they are bound to reside separately and, thus, they had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C before Family Court for grant of maintenance, which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that learned Family Court, without appreciating the materials/evidence available on records in its true sense and prospective, has rejected the applicants' application vide the impugned order. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that it 3 has been vested the role of Parens Patriae in matter like the present one. The moral obligation of the father towards his children was engrafted in form of statutory obligation. The applicants’ version/averment of fact of committal of sexual assault upon the children has remained unchallenged and, thus, in itself is sufficient reason for them to reside separately. They have adduced ample evidence to show that they have no source of earning and unable to maintain themselves, however, same was ignored by the Family Court. The respondent/husband is a rich man having huge business, properties, assets and sources of earning and he is also an able bodied man capable of earning to the fullest extent. Though for some time, Rs.7,000/- per month was paid to the applicants by the respondent- husband in the year 2022 as interim maintenance. Day to day expenses, made applicant/wife unable to give proper education to her children and other necessary facilities. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order may be set aside and direction be issued to the respondent to pay adequate amount of maintenance to the applicants. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission of counsel for the applicants and would submit that impugned order of the Family Court is well merited, which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 10. It is not in dispute that applicant No.1 was legally wedded wife of respondent and applicant Nos.2 & 3 are their children. 4 11. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the revision, submissions of counsel for the parties, price index prevailing in the society, particularly the income/earning of the respondent and his social as well as moral responsibilities towards the children ie applicant Nos.2 and 3, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to grant Rs.3,000/- per month to each children as maintenance. 12. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in part. It is directed that the respondent shall pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to each children ie applicant Nos.2 & 3, who are residing with their mother ie applicant No.1. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J.