1 2025:CGHC:27693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 968 of 2019 1 - Smt. Rajji Kaur @ Rajni W/o Jasmit Singh Makkad Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Pithora, Police Station And Tahsil - Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2 - Udam Singh Makkad S/o Jasmit Singh Makkad Aged About 5 Years Minor Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian Smt. Rajji Kaur @ Rajni Kaur, R/o Ward No. 14, Pithora, Police Station And Tahsil - Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Jasmit Singh Makkad S/o Surendra Singh Makkad Aged About 30 Years R/o In Front Of Uttam Cycle Stores, Station Road, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Shiwali Banshal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Surfraj Khan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Shiwali Banshal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Surfraj Khan, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 68/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 District – Mahasamund, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the applicants. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicants had filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance from the respondent to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- per month. The applicants have submitted that the applicant No.1 was married with respondent and out of their wedlock, the applicant No.2 has been born, who is living with the applicant No.1. After sometime of marriage, the respondent and his family members subjected the applicant No. 1 to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and also doubted upon the character of applicant No. 1 and ultimately the applicants were thrown by the respondent from his house, therefore the applicant No. 1 is living in her parental house along with applicant No. 2. The respondent is running transport business and getting income by transport business and he is also getting house rent, despite this, the respondent is not giving single penny towards maintenance of applicants, hence they filed application for grant of maintenance. After serving notice, the respondent filed reply and denied the allegations of cruelty and harassment. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 28.01.2019 the learned Family Court has allowed interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month in favour of applicants, which is meager. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the maintenance allowed by order dated 28.01.2019 is meager and insufficient, which is liable to be enhanced suitably in favour of applicants. The applicant No.1 is household lady and is required make- 3 up articles, proper food and cloths and similarly the applicant No. 2 is required proper food and cloths, school fees, tuition fees, bus expenses, books and other articles, therefore, the maintenance allowed in favour of applicants is insufficient and meager. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant No. 1 have no source of income, therefore, in such circumstances, the awarded maintenance is not sufficient for survival of applicant No.1 and her son applicant No.2. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is doing transport business and he is also getting house rent. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicants being legally wedded wife and daughter of non-applicant, are legally entitled to maintain living standard at per the non-applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 68/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Mahasamund, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the applicants, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the 4 applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar