1 2025:CGHC:38870 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 831 of 2023 1. Smt. Soni Kushwaha W/o Gurudayal Kushwaha Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Chorbhaththi, Police Station Sakari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Akarsh Kushwaha S/o Gurudayal Kushwaha Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Soni Kushwaha Wife Of Gurudayal Kushwaha, Aged About 24 Years (Applicant No.1), R/o Village Chorbhaththi, Police Station Sakari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Gurudayal Kushwaha S/o Late Rampyare Kushwaha Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Beltukari (Takhatpur), Police Station Kota, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Chouhan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the learned PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.06 19:00:18 +0530 2 Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC No.389/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants for grant of maintenance has been dismissed relating to the applicant No.1 and and granted meager amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2, hence this revision. 2. The brief facts of the case is that it is an undisputed fact between the parties that the marriage of Applicant No.1, Smt. Soni Kushwaha, was solemnized with the respondent, Gurudayal Kushwaha, on 11.05.2018 at Village Chorbhatti, District Bilaspur. Applicant No.2, Akarsh Kushwaha, was born on 20.06.2019 out of their wedlock. On 22.04.2022, an order was passed granting interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to Applicant No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to Applicant No.2. In brief, the application for maintenance states that the family of Applicant No.1 had given gifts and Rs. 50,000/- in cash to the respondent at the time of marriage, as per his demands. Everything remained cordial for three months post-marriage. Thereafter, the respondent and his family began demanding an additional Rs. 2,00,000/- and threatened her with death and a second marriage. Applicant No.1 was subjected to physical and mental abuse and assault. It is further alleged that the respondent’s family attempted to poison Applicant No.1 and sent her back to her parental home. She made several attempts to return to her matrimonial home but was refused entry. On one such attempt, accompanied by her brother, she was again turned away and threatened, following which she returned to her parental home, where she is currently residing with her son. It is stated that the respondent and his family have taken 10 acres of agricultural land on lease in Village Beltukri. They cultivate paddy on 2 acres and grow vegetables on 8 acres, from which they allegedly earn 3 approximately Rs. 5,00,000/- annually, along with a daily income of Rs. 2,000/- from vegetable sales. Despite this, no maintenance has been provided to the Applicants. Applicant No.1 is facing financial hardship in raising her son and has thus demanded monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/-. 3. The respondent filed his reply, denying all allegations except the undisputed fact of marriage and the birth of the child. He denied receiving any dowry in the form of cash or a scooty. He alleged that the Applicant took her stridhan back to her parental home after beating him. He claimed that she refused to do household work, avoided living with his mother, and often pretended to be unwell. He also alleged that she refused to return with him when he attempted to bring her back. He further stated that he was not informed about the birth of their son and that the maintenance application was filed with the intent to harass him. He claimed to be an agricultural laborer earning Rs. 2,500–3,000 per month and argued that Applicant No.1's father is wealthy, hence the application should be dismissed. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Maintenance was denied to Applicant No.1, while a meagre amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month was granted to Applicant No.2. Hence, this revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court erred in appreciating that the maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month awarded to Applicant No.2 is grossly insufficient, especially considering that he has now been admitted to school and requires expenses under various heads such as school fees, uniforms, books, transportation, etc. The Family Court also failed to properly consider that Applicant No.1 is not running any flower business of her own. The flower 4 shop referred to is operated by her mother, and Applicant No.1 merely assists her. Despite this, the Family Court rejected her maintenance application on this erroneous ground, assuming she had an independent source of income. Further, the Court failed to consider the rising cost of living, especially the high cost of accommodation and the added expenses associated with Applicant No.2's education. These factors clearly warrant an enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded to the child. The learned Family Court also overlooked the fact that the respondent and his family have leased 10 acres of agricultural land in Village Beltukri. They cultivate paddy on 2 acres and grow vegetables on the remaining 8 acres, earning approximately Rs. 5,00,000/- annually, along with a daily income of Rs. 2,000/- from vegetable sales. Contrary to the claims of the respondent, his parents do not have sufficient independent income. His mother sells flowers to sustain the family's expenses, which further implies that the respondent bears the financial responsibility for the household. Moreover, the respondent and his family members subjected Applicant No.1 to physical and mental cruelty and demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry. When she failed to meet their demands, she was assaulted and thrown out of her matrimonial home. Despite this, the respondent, who has a legal obligation to provide maintenance to both his wife and child, has failed to do so adequately. Applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the Non-Applicant. Given the substantial income generated from agricultural activities by the Non- Applicant and his family, she is also entitled to receive a reasonable maintenance amount. The denial of her maintenance claim by the Family Court is therefore arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which entitles a legally wedded wife to claim maintenance from her husband. 5 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that according to Smt. Soni Kushwaha (Applicant No.1), Applicant No.2, Akarsh Kushwaha, was born on 20.06.2019. In this regard, an Aadhaar card marked as Exhibit P-5 has been submitted, which mentions Gurudayal Kushwaha as the father. The respondent has not denied that Akarsh is his son. The child is a minor and there is no evidence to show that he has any income or property of his own. Therefore, it is clear that Applicant No.2 is unable to maintain himself, and the responsibility for his maintenance lies with his father, the respondent. Since the respondent claims to be a laborer, he can earn at least Rs. 3,000 to 6,000 per month. Considering this, it appears appropriate to award Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance for Applicant No.2, Akarsh Kushwaha. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 9. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 6 10. 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