1 2025:CGHC:28155 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 930 of 2018 1. Smt. Neelu Miri And Another W/o Vikash Miri Aged About 25 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Pachpedi, Tahsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Kavya Miri D/o Vikas Miri Aged About 2 Years Aged About 2 And Half Years (Minor) Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Neelu Miri, (Applicant No. 1), R/o Village Pachpedi, Tahsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Vikas Miri S/o Brijbihari Miri Aged About 29 Years Caste Satnami R/o Ring Road Barbuspur Chowk, Post Kudurmal, P. S. Urga, Tahsil and District Korba Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. The applicant/wife has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.244/2017, whereby PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.28 17:08:54 +0530 2 the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant/wife for grant of maintenance and respondent is directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant No.2/daughter, which is lower side, hence, this revision. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants have filed the application for grant of maintenance before the family Court, Bilaspur and it is disputed fact that the applicant No. 1 is wife and No.2 is the daughter of the respondent. The applicant which was filed by the applicant, it is mentioned that the respondent and his family turned the applicants from the matrimonial home and thus showed the cruelty in the conduct played by them, whereas in the reply filed by the respondent, it was stated that he had filed the application for grant of decree of divorce before the Family Court Korba on 17-08-2016 and the respondent is continuously paying the maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month and also stated in the reply that the applicant No.1 is a teacher and getting Rs.8,000/- per month and in the reply the respondent stated that he is a labourer and at his shoulder the responsibility of his old aged parents. The learned Family Court, Bilaspur after appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties allowed the application filed by the applicant and passed the order against the respondent by directing him to Rs.3,000/-per month to the applicant No.2 and Rs.4000/- to the applicant No.1 from the date of order. But, the amount granted by the learned Family Court is inadequate and not sufficient and just, because the prices of the commodities in the market has been increased but the amount of Rs.7,000/-, the standard cannot be maintained and therefore the 3 applicants in this revision confine their matter relating to enhancement of maintenance amount. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant No.1/wife submits that the order of the Family Court dated 18-07-2018 and the amount of maintenance granted to the applicants is not sufficient and not just for the sake of maintaining the life and therefore, taking into consideration of the increasing of the prices of the commodities in the market, the applicant humbly submits that they be ordered to be granted that amount of maintenance, which they had filed in the prayer and since the respondent runs a poetry farm and dairy farm and getting of yearly income of Rs.2 lakhs and since in the affidavit the applicant No.1 has stated that the respondent is employee of Vadenta Aluminum Company and getting salary of Rs.50,000/- and also he had five acres land and dairy farm and where he gets income of Rs.2 lakhs and this income has not been controverted by the respondent and despite the fact that the pay slips which has been filed by the applicant and discussion of same is found para 10 of the order from where it is stated that the respondent after deduction gets Rs.25,087/- per month and the statement of account which has been filed by the respondent from August 2017 to Dec.2017, the net salary obtained Rs. 1,26,131/-and therefore it is proved from the documents before the learned Family Court that the respondent is possessed of sufficient means and it has not been proved that the applicant No.1 gets Rs.8,000/- per month as working as teacher and applicants are dependent on their parents and therefore the Hon'ble Court had allowed the application filed by the applicants, but the amount granted relating to the maintenance is very low and inadequate in order to sustain the life and therefore the 4 revision be allowed and the amount of Rs.7000/- may be enhanced according to the prayer made in the application filed before the learned Family Court. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 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, as per the bank statement of the respondent/husband, he appears to be a person capable of earning income. He has a moral and legal responsibility to maintain his wife. Keeping in view the standard of living of both the parties and the financial condition of the respondent/husband, it seems reasonable for him to give maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month to his wife/applicant No.1 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to his daughter/applicant No.2, until she attains majority and gets married to a person of adequate means or becomes incapable of maintaining herself, whichever occurs first. Hence, the prayer made be enhancement of maintenance amount is also hereby rejected. 7. 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 5 committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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