1 2025:CGHC:28178 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1028 of 2019 1. Smt. Pratima Tiwari W/o Shri Dr. Babulal Umakant Tiwari, Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 244/1, Jagriti Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Mob.- 7620485953 2. Ku. Aradhya Tiwari (Minor) Aged About 20 Months, D/o Shri Dr. Babulal Umakant Tiwari, Through Mother Smt. Pratima Tiwari, R/o House No. 244/1, Jagriti Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Mob.- 7620485953. ... Applicants versus Dr. Babulal Tiwari S/o Shri Umakant Tiwari, Aged About 36 Years R/o Vitthal Nagar - 1, Near Uday Nagar Chowk, Nagpur, Police Station - Hudkeshwar, District - Nagpur ( Maharashtra ) Workplace Address - Dr. B.U. Tiwari, Parvati Nagar, District - Nagpur ( Maharashtra ) Mob - 9850318596 ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. T.K. jha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants as well as Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.28 15:54:00 +0530 2 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of the learned Court below and enhance the amount of maintenance up to Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand rupees) per month by modifying impugned order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Court below and allow this Revision in the favour of applicants in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants against the respondent before the Family Court, Raipur (C.G.). It is an admitted fact that applicant No. 01 was legally married to the respondent on 27.05.2011, and out of their wedlock, applicant No. 02 was born. As per the applicants’ case before the Family Court, after the marriage, the respondent ill-treated applicant No. 01, abused her, and made repeated demands for dowry. The respondent allegedly mixed some poisonous substance in the food of applicant No. 01, due to which she suffered from several diseases. The respondent continuously demanded dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- from applicant No. 01 and subsequently sent her to her maternal home. The applicants further stated in their application that the respondent did not provide food to applicant No. 01 and on several occasions locked her in a room for some time. The respondent did not allow applicant No. 01 to talk to her family over the phone. On a Sunday in May 2012, the 3 respondent poured kerosene oil on applicant No. 01 and attempted to burn her. On 24.04.2014, after about two years, applicant No. 01 returned to her matrimonial home, and on 29.04.2014, she discovered that she was one month pregnant. Upon informing the respondent, he did not respond immediately and came only after six months, then immediately left again. On 01.12.2014, applicant No. 01 gave birth to a male child, who was not medically fit and was admitted and referred to a hospital in Raipur. After about five days, the respondent came and, at his own risk, took the child from Raipur to Nagpur. Due to the respondent’s negligence, the child died. In January 2016, applicant no. 02 was born out of the legal wedlock of applicant no. 01 and the respondent. On one occasion, the respondent intimidated applicant No. 01 to commit suicide, due to which she had to be admitted to the hospital, and a report was lodged at the police station. Thereafter, the applicants came to applicant no. 01’s paternal home and have been residing there since then, as the respondent has never made any effort to take them back to the matrimonial home. 4. In their application before the Family Court, Raipur, the applicants sought maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand rupees) per month from the respondent. Applicant No. 01 is a non-working housewife, and applicant No. 02 is a minor girl child aged about 20 months, whereas the respondent is a doctor by profession, running two clinics and possessing agricultural land, from which he is earning about Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakh rupees) per month. The respondent is fully capable of maintaining his wife and minor 4 daughter, who are the present applicants. After receiving the respondent’s reply and upon perusal of the entire material and documents on record, the Family Court ordered the respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- (eight thousand rupees) per month to the applicants during the pendency of the case. 5. After considering all the evidence and documents produced before the trial Court and hearing the arguments of both parties, the learned trial Court ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to applicant no. 01 and Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to applicant no. 02, thereby directing payment of a total of Rs. 8,000/- per month. 6. The applicants, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court, are filing the present revision seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has utterly failed to consider the application and reply in their proper perspective and has not appreciated the documents produced by the applicants and the evidence on record in its proper perspective. The learned Family Court erred in interpreting the meaning and nature of Section 125 Cr.P.C. He submits that the Family Court rightly found that there were sufficient reasons for the applicants to live separately from the respondent. The Family Court rightly concluded that the application and the chief examination of applicant no. 01 had not been rebutted. He further submits that the order highlights that the respondent is a practising doctor; however, 5 this serious aspect was neglected by the learned trial Court, which failed to consider that the respondent is earning approximately Rs. 2,00,000/- per month as he runs two clinics. The Family Court did not properly conclude in its order that applicant no. 01 is a non- working housewife with no source of income, and considering the present circumstances, she requires additional maintenance for her livelihood. The learned trial Court failed to consider that applicant no. 02 is a 20-month-old girl child who requires proper medication, care, and protection, and the use of various baby products for her care. She will also begin schooling in a few months, for which additional maintenance will be required. He also submits that the respondent did not produce any document before the trial Court to prove the alleged income of the applicants. The applicant No. 01 is an adult aged about 27 years, and applicant no. 02 is aged about 20 months. The trial Court neglected to consider how it would be possible for the applicants to maintain themselves on an amount of only Rs. 8,000/-. By neglecting these facts, the trial court committed a gross error. He submits that the actual facts of the case are that the respondent himself deserted the applicants. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and 6 evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to the applicant No. 01 and Rs. 3000/- to the applicant No. 02, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek