1 2025:CGHC:36502 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1007 of 2023 1 - Smt. Pooja Saluja W/o Amrik Singh Saluja Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Bhadoriya Chowk, Nilgiri Park, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Harsh Saluja S/o Amrik Singh Saluja Aged About 8 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Pooja Saluja, applicant No. 1 Resident Of Bhadoriya Chowk, Nilgiri Park, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Tanmay Singh Saluja S/o Amrik Singh Saluja Aged About 6 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Pooja Saluja, applicant No. 1 Resident Of Bhadoriya Chowk, Nilgiri Park, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Amrik Singh Saluja S/o Late Inder Singh Saluja Aged About 40 Years R/o Deendayal Colony, Ahead Government Press, In Front Of Kirana Store, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Varunendra Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Varunendra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, C.G. in MJC No. 16/2021 parties being "Smt. Pooja Saluja and others vs. Amrik Singh Saluja" dated 17.05.2023 and further be pleased to allow the application filed by the applicants, in the ends of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant was solemnized in 2012, and out of their wedlock two children, applicants No. 2 and 3, were born. It is alleged that on 01.05.2020 the non-applicant drove the applicants out of the matrimonial home, compelling them to reside with the father of applicant No. 1, and that applicant No. 1 has no independent source of income. The non-applicant, who owns an auto-rickshaw and earns about ₹15,000–20,000 per month besides having an undivided interest in a house at Atal Colony, Rajnandgaon, failed to maintain them despite prior complaints of assault lodged against him. Consequently, the applicants claimed maintenance of ₹5,000 for applicant No. 1 and ₹3,000 each for the children. In reply, the non-applicant denied the allegations, claiming that applicant No. 1 frequently insulted and threatened him, lodged false complaints, occupied his house at Shankapur, and is earning from beautician and garment business. The Family Court framed four issues, recorded evidence from both sides, and by order dated 17.05.2023 3 partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the quantum, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, improper, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective. It is urged that the learned Family Court, without assigning cogent reasons, proceeded on conjectures and surmises in rejecting the legitimate claim of applicant No. 1 for grant of her own maintenance, despite clear evidence that she was driven out of the matrimonial home and has no independent income to sustain herself. It is further contended that the maintenance of only ₹700 per month each awarded to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (minor children) is grossly inadequate and does not meet even their basic necessities in the present cost of living. The applicants submit that maintenance must be reasonable, just and proper, keeping in mind the income and capacity of the non-applicant, as well as the needs of the wife and children, so that they may live with dignity and maintain themselves in consonance with the standard of living of the husband. Hence, the impugned order warrants suitable modification by enhancing the quantum of maintenance. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after carefully appreciating the pleadings, 4 evidence and material on record, rightly concluded that the applicants were entitled to partial maintenance. The Court considered the admitted facts of marriage and paternity of the children, along with the financial capacity of the non-applicant, who earns from operating an auto-rickshaw and has interest in immovable property, as well as the allegations of cruelty and abandonment by him. The Court also took note of the non- applicant’s defence regarding the alleged independent income of applicant No. 1 and her possession of property, and after balancing the circumstances of both parties, awarded a reasonable amount of maintenance of ₹700 per month each to the two minor children, while rejecting the maintenance claim of applicant No. 1. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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 as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan