1 2025:CGHC:38432 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 890 of 2022 Indrajeet Singh Rajput @ Indrajeet Thakur @ Banty Rajput @ Banty Thakur @ Ajay Thakur @ Sajan S/o Shiv Singh Thakur Aged About 43 Years R/o Rajput Sadan, Ekta Nagar, House No. 60, Sector 02, Gudhiyari Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Rashmi Rajput @ Ritika Rajput Aged About 7 Years, Respondent is Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Reena Rajput, R/o L.I.G. 242, Sector- 2, Housing Board Colony, Saddu Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Shukla, counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Sunil Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 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 allow this criminal revision and set aside the impugned order ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.05 13:50:09 +0530 2 dated 12.07.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) in Cr.M.C.C. No. 459/2019, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent has filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance, stating that the respondent, who is the daughter of the applicant, has been residing separately with her mother since 07.05.2019. The applicant and the mother of Rashmi Rajput, namely Reena Rajput, do not share cordial relations. Due to frequent quarrels and heated arguments between them, disputes arose, leading to their separation. Reena Rajput, the mother of Rashmi Rajput, is a well-qualified woman, presently employed as a Nurse at the Government Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Hospital, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 62,000/-. Additionally, she receives Rs. 10,000/- per month as house rent from a property situated in Saddu, Raipur. Despite having sufficient income, Reena Rajput filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. Reena Rajput appeared before the Court as PW-1 and deposed in support of her application. 4. After issuance of notice, the applicant filed a reply, denying all the averments made in the application. 5. Learned Family Court, after framing the issues, passed an interim maintenance order dated 12.07.2022, allowing the application of the respondent and directing the applicant to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. Learned Family Court has failed to consider the facts and evidence adduced before the 3 trial Court and has passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is a poor person, unemployed, and has no other means of income. It is pertinent to mention that the mother of the respondent, namely Reena Rajput, is employed as a Nurse at Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Government Hospital and is drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 62,000/-. Additionally, she receives Rs. 10,000/- per month as house rent from a property situated at Saddu, Raipur, as mentioned in Para 5 of the reply filed by the applicant. Hence, the mother of the applicant, Reena Rajput, is financially capable of maintaining herself, and therefore the impugned maintenance amount is liable to be quashed. He also submits that the mother of the respondent/applicant, of her own will, left the house of the applicant without any valid reason. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the mother of the respondent left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason and has not made any effort to reconcile or return to reside with the applicant. It is submitted that the maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month is excessive and is liable to be set-aside. It is submitted that the applicant is currently living with his parents in a rented house and has availed a loan from the bank. He is responsible for paying rent, repaying the loan, and bearing the medical expenses of his father and mother. Therefore, he is not in a financial position to pay any maintenance amount to the respondent/non-applicant. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of 4 the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek