1 2025:CGHC:36505 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 895 of 2023 1 - Smt. Mamta Rathore W/o- Shri Brajesh Kumar Rathore Aged About 38 Years R/o- New Shanti Chowk, Masturi, Tahsil- Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Aradhya Rathore D/o- Shri Brajesh Kumar Rathore Aged About 10 Years Through Legal Guardian (Mother) Smt. Mamta Rathore, W/o- Shri Brajesh Kumar Rathore, A/o- 38 Years, R/o- New Shanti Chowk, Masturi, Tahsil- Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Varidhi D/o- Shri Brajesh Kumar Rathore Aged About 13 Years Through Legal Guardian (Mother) Smt. Mamta Rathore, W/o- Shri Brajesh Kumar Rathore, A/o- 38 Years, R/o- New Shanti Chowk, Masturi, Tahsil- Masturi. ... Applicants versus Brajesh Kumar Rathore S/o- Shri Shivkumar Rathore Aged About 43 Years R/o- H. No. 196, Police Line, Near Post Office, Bilaspur, Constable Wireless Office, Police Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Akash Deep Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Akash Deep Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:- A. To call for the records of present case. B. To set aside the impugned order dt. 21.07.2023 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1191/2019 by the Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.), in so far as Applicant No. 01 (Smt. Mamta Rathore), is concerned. C. To allow the instant revision and enhance the amount of maintenance of the applicants as prayed in the application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. filed before Family Court. D. To pass any other order as per the facts and circumstances of the case, as the Hon'ble Court may deem proper.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant are legally wedded spouses, married on 11.05.2005, and have two daughters, applicants No. 2 and 3. It is alleged that on 10.08.2013, the non-applicant deserted the applicants after subjecting applicant No. 1 to cruelty. Initially, the applicants were granted ₹6,000 per month maintenance on the basis of compromise by order dated 14.09.2015, which was later enhanced to ₹7,500 per month by 3 order dated 22.06.2018 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Due to increased living expenses and rising educational costs of the daughters, the applicants again sought enhancement, producing salary slips of the non-applicant (a police constable), school fee receipts, and other documents showing his income and assets. The non-applicant contested, alleging applicant No. 1 earns ₹3,000 per month from teaching. Upon hearing both parties, the Family Court, by order dated 21.07.2023, enhanced maintenance for the daughters to ₹4,250 each (total ₹8,500) but denied maintenance to applicant No. 1 on the ground of her employment. It is also noted that during the subsistence of the marriage, the non-applicant remarried, for which criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC are pending. Aggrieved by the quantum, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order suffers from serious legal infirmities as it erroneously denies maintenance to Applicant No. 1 and grants only a meagre sum of ₹8,500 per month for both daughters, which is wholly inadequate to meet their growing educational and living expenses. The Family Court’s finding that Applicant No. 1 is not entitled to maintenance solely because she earns a nominal amount of ₹3,000 per month is contrary to settled legal principles, as it is well established that a husband has a continuing legal and moral duty to maintain his wife and children, irrespective of the wife’s limited earnings, particularly where such earnings are insufficient and lack job security. The Court further failed to consider the non- 4 applicant’s stable income as a police constable, his additional property holdings, and overall financial capacity, which warranted higher maintenance in proportion to his means. Thus, the impugned order, passed in disregard of these facts and established legal standards, is unsustainable and liable to be set aside with appropriate enhancement of maintenance. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the evidence placed on record by both parties, including the non-applicant’s salary slips, the applicants’ school fee receipts, and other relevant documents, rightly assessed the financial needs of the children and the earning capacity of the parties. Observing that applicant No. 1 is gainfully employed and capable of maintaining herself to some extent, the Court correctly denied her claim for maintenance, while ensuring adequate provision for the daughters by enhancing their maintenance to ₹4,250 each per month (total ₹8,500), commensurate with the non-applicant’s income and the rising educational expenses of the children. The order dated 21.07.2023 thus reflects a balanced and judicious approach, safeguarding the interests of the minor children while preventing undue burden on the non-applicant. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the finding 5 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan