1 2025:CGHC:37238 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 919 of 2025 Ku. Gyanshree D/o Shri Abhijit Chawda, Aged About 4 Years Through Her Natural Guardian Mother, Smt. Bharti Singh Divorced Wife of Abhijeet Chavda, Aged About 40 Years R/o D.C. Road, Ambikapur , District Surguja C.G. ... Petitioner versus Abhijit Chawda S/o Ghanshyam Nan Ji Chawda, Aged About 41 Years R/o Flat No. 105, Prime Residency, Fourth Cross, Kuvempuroad, B Chanshandra, Kasturi Nagar, Bangalore (Karnataka) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer: “The petitioner, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a) Set aside/modify the impugned Order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Family RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Court, in M.J.C. No. 214 of 2023, to the extent that it awards only Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to the Petitioner, Ku. Ghayanshree. b) Enhance the maintenance amount payable by the Respondent to the Petitioner from Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs.50000/- per month, or to such other amount as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper, considering the Respondent's financial capacity and the actual needs of the minor. (OR, in the alternative to (c): c) Remand the matter back to the learned Family Court with a direction to re-examine the issue of maintenance, ensuring proper assessment of the Respondent's income and the minor's needs, potentially after the appointment of an independent Next Friend for the minor, and pass a fresh order for maintenance after due consideration. d) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the best interest of the minor Petitioner.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner, Ku. Gyanshree, a minor girl aged about 4 years, is the daughter of Smt. Bharti Singh (natural 3 guardian) and the respondent, Mr. Abhijit Chawda. Through her mother, the petitioner had filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., registered as M.J.C. No. 214 of 2023, before the Family Court, Ambikapur, seeking maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month from the respondent/father. During pendency of the said case, a compromise was recorded between the parties, and vide impugned order dated 05.08.2024, the learned Family Court directed the respondent to pay only Rs. 5,000/- per month, with an annual increase of 10%, towards maintenance of the petitioner. The petitioner, through her mother, is constrained to file the present Revision Petition on the ground that the amount awarded is grossly inadequate, not in consonance with the child’s reasonable needs or the respondent’s financial capacity, and was passed under circumstances prejudicial to the interest of the minor amidst the ongoing matrimonial dispute between the parents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court erred in passing the impugned order based on a compromise that is not in the best interest of the minor child, Ku. Ghayanshree, as the amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month is grossly inadequate to meet her present and future needs, including nutrition, healthcare, and education, especially considering the respondent’s high income of about Rs. 3.5 lakhs per month as Senior Management Advisor in IQVIA and ownership of immovable property in Bengaluru. The Family Court failed to properly assess the respondent’s financial capacity and ignored the rising expenses of raising a 4-year-old child. Further, the compromise was arrived at 4 amidst a matrimonial dispute between the parents, creating a conflict of interest that prejudiced the minor’s rights, for which the Court ought to have considered appointment of an independent guardian. The order suffers from legal and factual error as it disregards the principle of the child’s paramount welfare, fixing a maintenance amount disproportionate to the father’s means and the child’s requirements. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly passed the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 directing the respondent-father to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month with an annual increase of 10% towards the maintenance of the minor child, Ku. Gyanshree. The Court carefully evaluated the evidence on record, including the financial status of the respondent and the reasonable requirements of the minor, and further noted the compromise voluntarily entered into by both parties. The amount awarded strikes a balance between the welfare of the child and the financial obligations of the father, ensuring continued support while preventing any undue financial burden. The order thus does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity and is in accordance with settled principles governing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perusing the impugned order and the finding 5 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 be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan