1 2025:CGHC:25140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 423 of 2017 1 - Premlata Sahu W/o Shri Manmohan Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Patora, Tehsil Berla, Police Statrion Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rakesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Monmohan Sahu, Aged About 9 Years Through Guardian Premlata Sahu, R/o Village Patora, Tehsil Berla, Police Station Berla, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Manmohan Sahu S/o Shri Jhaduram Sahu, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Khilora, Tehsil Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate, appearing for the non-applicant. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: (i) Call for the records of the case. (ii) Set-aside the impugned order dated 19.07.2016 (ANNEXURE-P/1) to the extent of granting of less maintenance passed by the learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg Circuit Court, Bemetara (C.G.) in the interest of justice. (iii) Award maintenance to applicant no. 1 at the rate of Rs 3000/- per month. (iv) Award/enhance maintenance to applicant no. 2 at the rate of Rs 3000/- per month.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant no. 1 and the respondent are husband and wife, their marriage having been solemnized in April 2001. From this wedlock, they have two children Ku. Jharna Sahu and Rakesh Kumar Sahu (applicant no. 2). Since 2009, the applicants have been living separately after the respondent removed them from the matrimonial home. Applicant no. 1, along with applicant no. 2, has been residing with her parents ever since. Despite several attempts at reconciliation, the respondent refused to take them back. Consequently, applicant no. 1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and her son. Although the learned trial Court found that the respondent has sufficient means and is unwilling to keep his wife, it held that applicant no. 1 is capable of maintaining herself and awarded only a meager sum of Rs. 1,500 per month for the 3 maintenance of applicant no. 2, as per the impugned judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 19.07.2016, is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, warranting enhancement of maintenance. He submits that the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidences and documents placed on record in its correct perspective. He further submits that the trial Court erred in not considering the primary objective of maintenance laws to prevent a wife from being left destitute. Despite finding that the respondent has sufficient means and that applicant no. 1 is not living separately without cause, the Court failed to impose maintenance liability on him. No evidence was presented by the respondent to prove applicant no. 1’s income, yet the Court incorrectly assumed she earns Rs. 500 per day without any supporting documents. Performing minimal stitching work for survival does not equate to being self-sufficient. Additionally, the respondent’s unproven allegations of adultery were based merely on suspicion. Applicant no. 1 has shown willingness to live with her husband, but he has refused, which legally obligates him to maintain her. Furthermore, Rs. 1,500 awarded to applicant no. 2, now 9 years old and in school, is inadequate for his education and nutritional needs; the amount should be at least Rs. 3,000 per month. 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 4 Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, Circuit Court, Bemetara (C.G.). 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 applicant no. 2 is unable to maintain himself, whereas applicant no. 1 is capable of maintaining herself and is therefore not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. Although the respondent has a moral and legal obligation to provide for his son, applicant no. 2, he has neglected this duty despite having sufficient means. Applicant no. 2 is presently residing with his mother, applicant no. 1. Considering the respondent’s monthly income, assessed at Rs. 7,000, along with the social and economic status of both parties and the current cost of living, it is reasonable and appropriate to award Rs. 1,500 per month as maintenance for applicant no. 2, to be paid by the respondent. Therefore, order passed by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, Circuit Court, Bemetara (C.G.), is just and proper, as such, I do not find any good ground for interference in this revision petition. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan