1 2025:CGHC:28165 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 998 of 2019 1 - Smt. Khusbu Joshi W/o Sumit Joshi Aged About 26 Years R/o Nearby Shri Laxminarayan Mandir, Killapara, Police Station And Tahsil Khairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, 2 - Bhuwansh Joshi S/o Shri Sumit Joshi Aged About 8 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Khusbu Joshi, R/o Nearby Shri Laxminarayan Mandir, Killapara, Police Station And Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Sumit Joshi S/o Rajendra Joshi Aged About 27 Years R/o Syndicate Bank 2, A.B. Road, Sansar Hospital, Forest Office, Nearby Tarini College, Devas, Tahsil and District Devas, (M.P.) (wrongly mentioned as C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. B.N.Nande, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.28 17:52:14 +0530 2 learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon Link Court Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No.82/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance and directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month in favour of applicant No.2/Bhuwansh Joshi however, dismissed the application with respect to applicant No.1/Smt. Khusbu Joshi. Thus, being aggrieved with the said impugned order, this revision has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case is that marriage of applicant No.1/wife was solemnized with non-applicant/husband on 12.02.2016. Applicant No. 1 pleaded in application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. that after sometime of her marriage, the non-applicants/respondent's family member started cruel behaviour with applicant No.1 for not bringing enough dowry and restricted applicant no. 1 to talk to her family members, during this time the applicant no. 1 got pregnant and after that despite her bad condition the respondent's family did not care her and finally on 20.04.2017, parents of applicant no.1 took her to matrimonial home. After that on 26.10.2017 she gave birth to a male child i.e. applicant no. 2. Further, all the medical expenses were borne by her parents and non-applicant never care nor help financially to the applicants under these circumstances. Thus, the applicant no. 1 forced to file maintenance application and claimed Rs. 15,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 10,000/- for her son. 3. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the maintenance application and granted Rs. 2,500/- maintenance 3 amount to applicant No. 2, however, rejected the application in favour of applicant No. 1. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has failed to exercise its judicial discretion judiciously while determining the quantum of interim maintenance payable to the applicants, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice. The impugned order dated 26.04.2019, awarding a mere 2,500/- per month to applicant No.2 and not granting any maintenance amount to applicant No.1, is arbitrary, unreasonable. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that only Rs. 2,500/- per month of maintenance amount is on lower side for the applicant no. 2 and the same needs to be enhanced suitably. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, and from the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that the non-applicant/husband is a clerk working in the Syndicate Bank and getting gross salary of Rs.29,715/- and net salary Rs.19,210/-. However, applicant No.1 is getting 4 Rs.3,000/- under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act on the basis of the order passed by the Family Court, Dewas. Further, it has been held that Applicant No. 2 is entitled to receive maintenance amount from the non-applicant. Since the non-applicant is the father of applicant No. 2 and being a father, it is his moral duty to maintain applicant number 2. Therefore, applicant No.2 has been granted maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month from the non- applicant. As a result, the application of the applicants was partially accepted and it is ordered that the non-applicant should pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month to applicant No.2 regularly from the date of order within the tenth of every month and further rejected the application with respect to applicant No.1, which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti