1 2025:CGHC:29575 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 785 of 2025 1. Smt. Indu W/o Shri Surendra Pratap Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Singhat, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawan District Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o At Village Karaundamuda, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Prince S/o Shri Surendra Pratap Aged About 4 Years Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Indu W/o Shri Surendra Pratap, R/o Village Singhat, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawan District Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o At Village Karaundamuda, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Surendra Pratap S/o Shri Rajaram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Singhat, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawan District Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved 2 with the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.172/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and granted the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicants (Rs. 1,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- to applicant No.2). 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant No.1 and respondent are the husband and wife, they have solemnized their marriage prior to 07 years, according to social ritual at village Karaundamuda, Police Station and Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District: Surajpur (C.G.). Out of their wedlock two children (namely Ankita 06 years and Surendra Prince 04 years) were born. After passing the sometime of the marriage, the respondent have tortured in the name of demanding the dowry and committed marpit. The respondent used to commit marpit with the applicant No.01 in drunken condition. The applicant No.01 was also ousted from the house by the respondent. After ousting the applicants, the respondent is living with one Sapna of village Parasgarhi District Manendragarh. The applicants have no any source of income and the respondent is working as Raj Mistry and earning Rs. 21000/- per month and from other sources Rs. 15,000/-, and seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- The respondent denied the contention and requested to set-aside the application on the ground that the applicant No.01 is having physical relation with one Devnarayan of village and on restricting her to do so, she herself left the house of in-laws and started living at her parental house without any rhyme or reasons. 3. The learned Family Court, after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties, passed the order dated 26.03.2025, and partly allowed the application filed by the applicant and granting the 3 maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The applicants filed the instant criminal revision for enhancement of the maintenance amount, is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law in part. Hence this criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record in part only. The learned Family Court, has not properly appreciated the evidence and granting the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month is a lower side, and is liable to be enhanced looking to the monthly earning of the respondent. Looking to the entire facts material and evidence, the maintenance amount is liable to be enhanced. Hence, the impugned is liable to be set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that the basis presented by the applicant No.1/wife regarding living separately from the respondent, that the respondent/husband has married for the second time, has been found to be established, but the basis presented regarding harassment by demanding dowry has not been found to be established. Thus, as a result of the respondent marrying for the second time, the applicant has been forced to live separately from the respondent. It is also clear from the available evidence that the respondent is not giving any food expenses to the applicants, whereas the respondent has the legal responsibility to maintain the applicants. In such a situation, the applicants are entitled to receive maintenance. Therefore, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and 4 the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein 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. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti