1 2025:CGHC:28163 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1027 of 2019 1. Smt. Durgeshnandani Chandrakar W/o Anuran Chandrakar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Barbaspur, Police Station And Tahsil Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2. Yash Chandrakar S/o Anurag Chandrakar Aged About 8 Years Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Durgeshnandani Chandrakar (Applicant No. 1) R/o Village Barbaspur, Police Station And Tahsil Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Anurag Chandrakar S/o Dev Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Sivnikala, Kurud, Police Station Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press the present ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.27 10:39:48 +0530 2 criminal revision when the matter is called for hearing. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to enhance the amount of maintenance awarded to applicants as claimed in the application filed before the learned Family Court Mahasamund, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicants have preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance amounting to Rs. 20,000/-. The marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 24.05.2010 as per Hindu customs and rituals, and out of the wedlock, applicant No.2 was born. After the marriage of the respondent’s sister, the father-in-law and mother-in-law of applicant No.1 started ill-treating her in relation to household work. Upon informing the respondent, he failed to cooperate or support applicant No.1. The detailed pleadings have been mentioned in the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The respondent is earning an income of Rs. 40,000/- per month from his salary and owns 30 acres of irrigated agricultural land, from which he earns a net annual income of Rs. 10 lakhs. The respondent filed a reply to the application and denied all the adverse allegations made against him. 3 5. After recording the evidence of both parties and considering the arguments advanced by them, the learned Family Court, by its impugned order dated 18.07.2019, partly allowed the application of the applicants and awarded a meager amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 18-07-2019 (Annexure A-1), passed by the learned Family Court, granting a meager amount of maintenance to the applicants, is bad in law, erroneous, and contrary to the facts and applicable legal provisions. He submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered the fact that the respondent has an income of Rs. 40,000/- per month from salary, and accordingly, maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month should have been granted to the applicants. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to take into account that the school fees and vehicle expenses of applicant No.2 amount to Rs. 2,700/- per month. Therefore, the maintenance order should have been passed considering these necessary expenses and other related expenditures of applicant No.2. In view of the income of the respondent, the amount of maintenance awarded is grossly inadequate and insufficient to meet the needs of the applicants. He also submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that the maintenance amount should be determined not only based on the income of the respondent but also considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the 4 pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to the applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1000/- to the applicant No. 02/son, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek