1 2025:CGHC:28588 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 951 of 2019 1 - Kaushal Kumar Sande @ Kaushal Sinha S/o Mahendra Kumar Sande Aged About 33 Years R/o Through Lab Care Diagnostic, In Front Of Bachpan Hospital, Mahadevghat Road, Raipura Chowk, Raipura, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Other Address Village Toshgaon, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Veena Sinha (Sande) W/o Kaushal Kumar Sande @ Kaushal Sinha, Aged About 30 Years R/o Gali No. 4, Mahadev Nagar, Nearby Pili Building, New Changorabhatha, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Harshita Sande D/o Kaushal Kumar Sandey Aged About 7 Years R/o Gali No. 4, Mahadev Nagar, Nearby Pili Building, New Changorabhatha, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the respondents. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set aside the order dated 10.07.2019 (ANNEXURE A/1) passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in M.J.C. Case No. 256/2016, in the interest of justice” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the Respondent No.1 (wife) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Raipur, seeking maintenance of ₹20,000 per month for herself and ₹30,000 for her daughter, Respondent No.2, Harshita, alleging that the Applicant (husband) had subjected her to dowry-related harassment and forced her to live separately since 18.02.2016. It was stated that Respondent No.2 is a diabetic patient requiring regular medical treatment, for which the Applicant is financially responsible. The Applicant, in his reply, denied all allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, and submitted that Respondent No.1 is herself a government employee capable of maintaining both herself and the daughter. He also submitted his limited income from working in a pathology lab and argued that he had no permanent source of income. Despite this, the learned Family Court awarded ₹5,000 per month as interim maintenance and later directed ₹12,000 monthly maintenance solely for Respondent No.2. The 3 Applicant submits that the impugned orders are contrary to law, ignoring the financial capacity of the Applicant and the independent income of Respondent No.1. Hence, this revision has been preferred challenging the legality and correctness of the maintenance order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to settled legal principles, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The Court failed to appreciate that Respondent No.1 is a government employee and financially capable of maintaining herself, and is also partially responsible for the maintenance of her daughter. The applicant, on the other hand, is a financially weak person working in a private pathology lab with no permanent source of income, and it is not feasible for him to pay the excessive amount of maintenance as directed. Furthermore, the learned court erred by not taking into consideration that the applicant is already paying ₹5,000 per month to the respondents under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Hence, awarding an additional maintenance amount under Section 125 Cr.P.C. without adjusting the prior obligation is unjustified. Hence, the impugned order warrants interference in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.). 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order passed by the learned Family Court is just, fair, and in accordance with the settled principles of law. The Court rightly considered the needs of Respondent No.2, a minor child suffering from diabetes and requiring ongoing medical treatment, and accordingly awarded ₹12,000 per month solely for her maintenance. The Family Court also took into account the fact that the Applicant, being the father, has a legal and moral obligation to provide for the basic needs and health expenses of his child, irrespective of the financial status of Respondent No.1. The maintenance of ₹5,000 earlier granted under the Domestic Violence Act does not absolve the Applicant of his responsibilities under Section 125 Cr.P.C., especially when the amount was not found sufficient to meet the special medical needs of the child. The Family Court appropriately exercised its discretion and passed a reasoned order, considering the welfare of the child as paramount, and no error or illegality can be attributed to the order passed. 8. Considering the submission 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. 5 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 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 Rahul Dewangan