1 2025:CGHC:40157 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 920 of 2023 1 - Smt. Ritu Chandrakar D/o Naresh Chandrakar Aged About 36 Years W/o Rajkumar Chandrakar, R/o Village Mudmar, Police Station, Tahsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Minor Ku. Kashish Chandrakar D/o Rajkumar Chandrakar Aged About 15 Years Student Of Class 10th, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ritu Chandrakar, W/o Rajkumar Chandrakar, R/o Mudmar, Police Station, Tahsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Minor Harshit Chandrakar S/o Rajkumar Chandrakar Aged About 13 Years Student Of Class 8th, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ritu Chandrakar, W/o Rajkumar Chandrakar, R/o Mudmar, Police Station, Tahsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Rajkumar Chandrakar S/o Bhesram Chandrakar Aged About 46 Years Occupation - Sikshakarmi Grade - Iii, Primary School Hathibahara, R/o Village Devri, Police Station Komakhan, Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.), At Present R/o Ward No. 06, Lalpur Bagbahara, Police Station And Tahsil Bagbahara, District Masamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the court below and after being satisfied may kindly be pleased to:- 1. Set aside/quash the impugned order dated 01.05.2023 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case number 2/2022, titled as Smt. Ritu Chandrakar & Ors. Vs. Rajkumar Chandrakar, only upto the extent of maintenance amount granted and same be modified by appropriately enhancing the same, and/or 2. pass any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit as per the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the applicants filed an application under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. on 03.01.2022, stating that applicant No.1 was married to the Respondent on 30.06.2005, and from the wedlock applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were born, both minors represented through their mother. It was alleged that after marriage the Respondent, initially serving in the police department and later as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 earning Rs.30,000/- per month, subjected applicant No.1 to cruelty, abuse, and assault on account of his 3 alleged illicit relationship with one Sangeeta Chandrakar, ultimately ousting her along with the children from the matrimonial home, compelling them to reside separately without maintenance. Despite repeated efforts, including interventions by the community, the Respondent refused to live with applicant No.1, and in October 2021 allegedly married Sangeeta without obtaining a decree of divorce. It was asserted that the Respondent, having sufficient means, neglected to maintain the applicants, necessitating maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for each. The Respondent denied the allegations, contending that the marriage had been dissolved by “social divorce” on 12.09.2021 as per their community custom, that applicant No.1 was living in adultery with one Rajesh Patel, and that he was willing to keep and maintain the children but the applicant obstructed their meeting. He further claimed that the applicant was financially well-off and not entitled to maintenance. Upon consideration of pleadings, evidence, and affidavits, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 01.05.2023, found neglect and sufficient means on the part of the Respondent, and directed him to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month each to applicants 2 and 3, along with arrears of interim maintenance and Rs.3,000/- as costs. Aggrieved solely on the ground of inadequacy of the amount awarded, the applicants have preferred the present revision seeking enhancement in terms of their original claim. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicants have no independent source of income and, considering 4 the present inflation and basic needs, had claimed maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month (Rs.10,000/- each), which is justified as applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are school-going children (in Classes 10th and 8th) requiring expenses towards education, medical care, nutrition, and clothing. The Respondent has admitted in evidence (para 34) to earning Rs.38,000/- per month by salary and has concealed his agricultural income. His contradictory statements regarding ownership and sale of agricultural land, coupled with the ostensible sale/tenancy transactions with one Sangeeta Chandrakar, his present wife clearly indicate attempts to frustrate applicants’ rights and evade maintenance liability. The Respondent’s mother receives family pension and is not dependent on him, whereas applicant No. 1 has to maintain herself and two children. In these circumstances, the maintenance awarded by the learned Court below is inadequate and requires proportionate enhancement in light of the Respondent’s sufficient means and admitted liability to maintain the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due appreciation of the pleadings, 5 evidence, and affidavits on record, has rightly held that the applicants, being the legally wedded wife and minor children of the Respondent, were living separately for justifiable reasons and that the Respondent, despite having sufficient means, had neglected to maintain them. The findings rejecting the Respondent’s plea of “social divorce” and allegations of adultery, being unsupported by cogent evidence, are well-founded. The grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month each to applicants Nos. 2 and 3, together with arrears of interim maintenance and litigation costs, is based on a balanced consideration of the needs of the applicants vis-à-vis the income and obligations of the Respondent. 8. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan