1 2025:CGHC:34924 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 865 of 2022 Anup Verma S/o Sahay Ram Verma Aged About 46 Years R/o Devaribhat, Tahsil And Police Station Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Maheshwari Verma W/o Anup Verma Aged About 41 Years R/o Devaribhat, Tahsil And Police Station Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Present R/o Village Chandkhuri, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Gitika Verma D/o Shri Anup Verma Aged About 13 Years Minor, Presented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Maheshwari Verma, R/o Devaribhat, Tahsil And Police Station Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Present R/o Village Chandkhuri, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Sheelsagar Verma S/o Shri Anup Verma Aged About 11 Years Minor, Presented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Maheshwari Verma, R/o Devaribhat, Tahsil And Police Station Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Present R/o Village Chandkhuri, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Gameshwari Verma D/o Shri Anup Verma Aged About 7 Years Minor, Presented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Maheshwari Verma, R/o Devaribhat, Tahsil And Police Station Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Present R/o Village Chandkhuri, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Ms. Rakshita Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Rakshita Mishra, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2019, passed by the court of Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District : presiding officer Smt. Neeru Singh, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 550/2019 or reduced the maintenance amount by suitably modify the order, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Non-applicant No. 1 in the year 2003, at Village Dhangaon, as per Hindu Rituals and rites and out of said wedlock, the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 4, were born and they were residing with her mother i.e. Non-applicant No.1. The non-applicants have filed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance and claiming maintenance amount of Rs. Total 25,000/- in their application on the ground that after the marriage, the applicant given the crural treatment to the non-applicant No.1 therefore, she left his house. She further contended that, she has no any source of 3 income to maintain herself and children. She further stated that, the applicant has a sufficient source of income, therefore seeking maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- from the applicant. 4. The learned Family Court, after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties, passed the order dated 26.09.2019, whereby partly allowed the application of the non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2500/- per month to the non- applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 500/- per month each to the non- applicant Nos. 2 to 4 total 4,000/-.Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, has not properly appreciated the evidence and have failed to see that the non-applicants have not able to prove the income of the applicant. The learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance amount in favour of non-applicants is higher side looking to the condition of the applicant. He also submits that the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence and material, to adopt the arbitrary manner, allowed the application of the non- applicants are illegal. The applicant has not given any crural treatment to the non-applicant but she herself, left the house of the applicant and residing with other man Kunj Lal Sahu. He further submits that the impugned order is ex-parte passed therefore, it is liable to quashed for fair hearing of the matter. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court concerned after 4 considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicants have succeeded in proving their application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, monthly income of the applicant, the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 500/- per month each to the non- applicant Nos.2 to 4 (Total 4000/-) as maintenance, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month to the non-applicants, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal