1 2025:CGHC:41286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 968 of 2024 1 - Smt. Tejkunvar Nagdoune W/o Manmohan Nagdoune Aged About 35 Years R/o Sirgitti, Bannak Chouk, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Anshika Nagdoune D/o Shri Manmohan Nagdoune Aged About 14 Years Minor Appellant No. 2 Through The Legal Guardian Smt. Tejkunvar Nagdoune, R/o Sirgitti, Bannak Chouk, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Manmohan Nagdoune S/o Late Gokul Prasad Nagdoune Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Ambedkar Nagar, Netaji Gali Magarpara, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Naveen Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Naveen Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent. 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 set aside impugned order and may kindly order for the increase in RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the amount granted by the learned court below and also grant the maintenance from date of institution of application in favour of the applicant dated 10.07.2024, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant No.1, the legally wedded wife of the respondent, was married to him on 02.05.2004 at village Bhaisma, and from the wedlock one daughter, applicant No.2, was born. While the initial period of marriage was cordial, the respondent’s conduct subsequently changed, as he habitually consumed alcohol, subjected the applicant to cruelty, and physically assaulted her, causing mental harassment. Despite her efforts to resolve the matrimonial discord through family meetings, the respondent’s behaviour did not improve. In September 2020, the applicant was allegedly driven out of the matrimonial home, and subsequent attempts at reconciliation failed. Aggrieved, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court on 03.05.2023, registered as MJC No. 376/2023. The matter was referred for counselling, but no settlement was reached. The respondent, while filing his reply, also preferred an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was dismissed. After framing issues and considering the evidence on record, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 10.07.2024, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the applicants along with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence the applicants have preferred the present revision seeking enhancement. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569, particularly with regard to the quantum and commencement of maintenance. The learned Court erred in awarding only Rs. 4,000/- per month, which is inadequate to meet the day-to-day needs of the applicants, especially applicant No.2, a 14-year-old school-going girl with educational, stationery, and other essential expenses. Further, as per para 125 of Rajnesh vs. Neha, maintenance should be granted from the date of institution of the application, i.e., 03.05.2023, whereas in the present case, it was erroneously made payable only from the date of the order, i.e., 10.07.2024, thereby causing a substantial loss to the applicants. Considering the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is to provide immediate relief to a deserted wife, children, and parents, the failure to award maintenance from the date of application has resulted in a monetary loss of Rs. 56,000/- to the applicants, rendering the order unjust and liable to be modified. 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 Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, (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 has rightly appreciated the pleadings, 4 evidence, and circumstances of the case in awarding maintenance to the applicants. The material on record established that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and has been living separately for valid reasons arising from the respondent’s conduct, and applicant No.2, being the minor daughter, is entitled to financial support. The respondent failed to prove any sufficient cause for the applicants’ separation or to discharge his legal obligation to maintain them. Accordingly, the learned Family Court, by its order dated 10.07.2024, justly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in granting maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month along with costs of Rs. 1,000/-, and the said order is well- reasoned, lawful, and in consonance with the object of the provision. 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 as well as original records be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan