1 2025:CGHC:30923 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 815 of 2025 Pranay Tripathi S/o- Parikshit Tripathi, Aged About 37 Years Occupation - Service, R/o- Near Gyatri Temple, Malidipa, Boirdadar, Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Ankita Tripathi W/o- Pranay Tripathi, Aged About 27 Years D/o- Bharat Kumar Prahraj, 2 - Minor Aayush Tripathi, S/o- Pranay Tripathi, Aged About 4 Years Through- Natural Guardian Mother- Smt Ankita Tripathi, W/o- Pranay Tripathi, Age-27 Years R/o- Presently R/o Sindhi Colony, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court kindly may be set-aside/quashed by the order passed in CrMJC No. F-103/2021 in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent No.1 are legally wedded husband and wife, and respondent No.2 is their son, currently around 4 years old and studying at Shalini Convent School while residing with his mother. respondent No.1 had earlier filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance. Upon notice, the applicant appeared before the Family Court and filed a detailed reply, stating that a compromise decree had already been drawn between the parties. He further submitted that respondent No.1 is an educated woman working as a teacher in her father’s school and earning a sufficient income to support herself and the child. The applicant contended that he is currently unemployed, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, and has no stable source of income. He also pointed out that respondent No.1 is residing at Raigarh and is financially capable of admitting their son to a reputed school, which would not be possible without sufficient means. Despite these facts, the learned Family Court, without proper application of mind and consideration of the applicant’s financial condition, awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned trial court is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and deserves to be set aside. The court failed to consider that a compromise decree regarding maintenance had already been executed between the parties, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure A/2. Furthermore, the respondent is living 3 separately from the applicant without any justifiable reason and is not entitled to maintenance, particularly when she is an educated woman capable of maintaining herself. The applicant has consistently expressed his willingness to provide maintenance for respondent No.2, their minor child. However, it appears that the respondent has filed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. with the intent to cause harm to the applicant. In light of these facts, the learned trial court erred in awarding maintenance without properly appreciating the evidence and the compromise decree, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order passed by the learned Family Court is just, fair, and in accordance with the settled principles of law. Despite the applicant’s claim of a compromise decree and his alleged unemployment, the Court rightly prioritized the welfare of the child and the responsibility of the father to contribute towards his upbringing. The Court considered that respondent No.2, a minor child, is studying in a reputed school and requires financial support for his education and well-being. Furthermore, even if respondent No.1 is educated and earning, it does not absolve the applicant of his legal obligation to maintain his child. The interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month awarded to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is reasonable, especially given the rising cost of living and the child’s educational needs. The Family Court 4 has not committed any illegality or impropriety in granting the said relief, and its order reflects a balanced and welfare-oriented approach. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 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 be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan