1 2025:CGHC:30184 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 883 of 2018 1 - Smt. Anju Meshram W/o Shri Purushottam Meshram Aged About 35 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Shahvada, Post Office Shahvada, Tahsil Kanker, District Uttar Basar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Kashish Meshram D/o Purushottam Meshram Aged About 11 Years Applicant No. 2 Being Minor On Behalf Of Through Her Legal/natural Guardian Mother Of Applicant No. 1 Smt. Anju Meshram, Occupation Student And Study In Class-6th, R/o Village Shahvada, Post Office Shahvada, Tahsil Kanker, District Uttar Basar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Purushottam Meshram S/o Narayan Meshram Aged About 36 Years Occupation Shikshakarmi Grade-1, R/o Bijlipara, Charama, Post And Tahsil Charama, District Uttar Basar Kanker Chhattisgarh Present Posted At Shikshakarmi Grade-1, Higher Secondary School, Markatola, Block Charama, District Uttar Basar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 03 /07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 17.05.2018 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kanker, District – North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.12/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to applicant No.2 only towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants, a wife and her minor child, are governed by Hindu Law, having been married on 29.05.2006, as per Hindu rites and rituals. A female child was born from this wedlock on 25.12.2007. The applicants filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court, Kanker, seeking Rs. 20,000 for their sustenance. The Family Court partly allowed the application, awarding Rs. 10,000 as maintenance to the child (applicant No. 2) while rejecting the application of wife's (applicant No. 1). The court held that the wife had not proven sufficient cause for residing separately and had failed to establish cruelty or ill-treatment by the husband. The respondent (husband) had contested the application, denying allegations of cruelty and asserting that the wife was living separately without reasonable 3 cause. The applicants challenge the Family Court's order, arguing that it was passed without proper application of mind and that the wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court's decision to reject the wife's maintenance claim is unjustified, as she has a reasonable cause to live separately due to her husband's cruelty, dowry demands, and ill-treatment. The court failed to consider these crucial aspects. He further submits that the Family Court overlooked crucial fact that the husband and his family subjected the wife to cruelty and harassment over dowry demands, leading to physical assaults, including when she was pregnant. He eventually abandoned her and their child at a bus stand. This conduct forced the wife to live separately, constituting a reasonable cause for her to claim maintenance. The Court failed to appreciate these facts, which entitle her to maintenance alongside their child. He also submits that the Family Court overlooked critical fact that the wife and child have been residing with her parents for an extended period, and she is unable to support herself due to poverty and lack of earning capacity. Her elderly parents are also incapable of maintaining them. In contrast, the husband has a stable job as a Shikshakarmi Grade-1 with a decent salary, making him capable of providing maintenance. The court failed to consider these aspects, which strongly support the wife's claim for maintenance for herself and 4 their child. Therefore, the order impugned is bad in law and the same is liable to be set-aside. 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 parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to applicant No.2 only towards maintenance observing that applicant No. 1 failed to prove her case in relation to herself, whereas she was successful in proving the case in relation to applicant No. 2. Therefore, the Family Court dismissed the application in respect to applicant No.1. As for applicant No. 2 is concerned, considering the income of the respondent and the needs of applicant No. 2 for her upbringing and education, the demand for maintenance appears reasonable. The Family Court concluded that the respondent shall pay Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand rupees) per month to applicant No. 2 through her guardian mother, applicant No.1, during her minority and until she attains 5 majority, gets married, or becomes self-sufficient, whichever occurs first. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil