1 2025:CGHC:37952 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 797 of 2021 1. Sharda Singh W/o Manoj Kumar Singh Aged About 44 Years D/o Late Antaryami Singh R/o M. Q. 50 Shakti Nagar Gevra, Thana Dipka, Tahsil Katghora, District – Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Devrat Singh S/o Manoj Kumar Singh Aged About 10 Years Through His Mother Smt. Sharda Singh Aged About 44 Years W/o Manoj Kumar Singh. R/o M. Q. 50 Shakti Nagar Gevra, Thana Dipka, Tahsil Katghora District – Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Manoj Kumar Singh S/o Baikunth Nath Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o M. Q. 50 Shakti Nagar Gevra, Thana Dipka, Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh Presently Residing At Quarter No. C-98 Urja Nagar, Gevra, Thana Dipka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.03.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 50/2017, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.04 17:36:23 +0530 2 under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and ordered the respondent/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.11,000/- per month to the applicant No.1, Rs. 9,000/- per month to applicant No.3. 2. The facts, in brief, is that applicant No. 01 was married to the respondent on 25th April 2001. As a result of their union, two sons, Aryavrat Singh and Devvrat Singh, were born. The respondent belongs to a well-off family. His father was posted as the Chief Personnel Officer at S.E.C.L., and after his death, his elder son, Pramod Singh, was appointed to the company on compassionate grounds. He is currently serving as a Labour Officer at Chirmiri Colliery. From the time of marriage, the respondent and his family began taunting and harassing applicant No. 01 for dowry. The respondent used to say that if he had married another girl, he would have received a higher dowry. The respondent’s younger sister, Mrs. Rita Singh, used to instigate applicant No. 01's father by saying that the place where applicant No. 01 lived before marriage is where the family’s housemaid comes from, and she is only fit to be a maid. Applicant No. 01 endured all this, hoping that the respondent and his family would eventually change, but their behavior never improved. Applicant No. 01's parents, brothers, and other family members gave dowry according to their capacity, which included ₹7,00,000 in cash, a full set of gold and silver jewelry, a sofa set, furniture, an almirah, kitchen utensils, and appliances. This was because the respondent had demanded cash and household items as dowry before the marriage. The respondent was initially employed as a driver at the S.E.C.L. Gevra mine. His sister and her husband used to provoke him by saying that he was officer material and should not be working as a driver in S.E.C.L. Because of this, the respondent began consuming alcohol and would come home drunk and fall asleep. If applicant No. 01 asked him to go to work, he would verbally 3 abuse and physically assault her. The respondent is currently working as a dumper operator and earns approximately ₹60,000 per month. In addition, he has ancestral property, from which he earns an income of several lakhs through agriculture. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the documentary evidence, i.e., the respondent's pay slip for January 2017, reveals that he received a gross salary of ₹74,906 for that month. It is submitted that the respondent's current monthly salary has now exceeded ₹85,000. In addition to his salary, the respondent also earns income from other sources, including ancestral property. Applicant No. 2 has recently enrolled in coaching classes to prepare for various competitive examinations, which involves significant tuition fees. These expenses are in addition to regular school fees and other necessary expenditures required for the proper upbringing of Applicant No. 2. The learned Family Court relied on income documents from the year 2017, whereas the respondent has received multiple increments over the past four years, and his income has substantially increased since then. The annual coaching fees alone for applicant No. 2 is approximately ₹60,000. Moreover, the respondent has not been regularly paying maintenance to his wife and children, making it extremely difficult for the applicants to manage their daily expenses. The learned Family Court committed an error in deducting ₹5,000 from the total maintenance amount on account of the amount already being paid to the wife in the Domestic Violence case. It is a settled legal position that maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence Act is separate and in addition to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. It is submitted that the maintenance amount awarded needs to be appropriately enhanced to meet the basic needs of the applicants. 4 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and supports the impugned order dated 27.03.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 50/2017, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and ordered the respondent/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.11,000/- per month to the applicant No.1, Rs. 9,000/- per month to applicant No.3, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicants is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti