1 2025:CGHC:34069 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 873 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sujatha W/o I. Ravi Kumar Dora, Aged About 44 Years R/o 37/19, Panchsheel Nagar Paschim Charoda Bhilai, Thana Purani Bhilai District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Ku. Smriti Priya D/o I. Ravi Kumar Dora, Aged About 9 Years Through Mother Smt. Sujata, R/o 37/19, Panchsheel Nagar Paschim Charoda Bhilai, Thana Purani Bhilai District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Sarthak Ranjan S/o I. Ravi Kumar Dora Aged About 14 Years Through Mother Smt. Sujata, R/o 37/19, Panchsheel Nagar Paschim Charoda Bhilai, Thana Purani Bhilai District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Ku. Shruti, D/o I. Ravi Kumar Dora, Aged About 20 Years R/o 37/19, Panchsheel Nagar Paschim Charoda Bhilai, Thana Purani Bhilai District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicants versus I. Ravi Kumar Dora S/o Somnath Dora, Aged About 44 Years R/o Senior Technician, P.F. No. 39307961443 Vidhyut Locoshed, B.M.Y. Bhilai Charoda R/o- Chief Tection Formen, Vidhyut Locoshed, B.M.Y., Secr B.M.Y. Charoda Bhilai, Thana- G.R.P. Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel the applicants. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg District – Durg (CG.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 877/2024, whereby the learned Family Court rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the revisionist/applicant no.1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court seeking monthly maintenance of ₹50,000/- for herself and her three children (applicants no.2 to 4), stating that she was legally married to the non-applicant on 07.03.2002 as per Hindu customs in Bhilai, District Durg. From the marriage, three children were born and are currently pursuing their education in English medium schools and a technical institute. The non-applicant is employed as a Senior Technician in the Electric Loco Shed, South East Central Railway, Bhilai, and draws a monthly salary of approximately ₹80,000/- along with ₹8,000/- HRA and other allowances. Despite being financially capable, the non-applicant is an alcoholic and has neglected to provide for the applicants’ basic needs, education, and extracurricular activities. Applicant no.1 bears expenses such as school fees, tuition, utility bills, and vehicle EMIs (for an Activa and a car financed in her name) due to the non-applicant’s failure to fulfill his responsibilities. She has had to sell her jewelry and borrow money to cover her children’s education, including the B.Tech fees of applicant no.4. The non-applicant also has a history of irresponsible financial behavior, including taking loans and misusing funds for personal indulgences, while avoiding household 3 responsibilities. Despite several attempts and previous financial help from applicant no.1’s family, his conduct has not improved. However, the learned trial court, vide order dated 21.04.2025, dismissed the maintenance application without properly considering the evidence and financial needs of the applicants. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the present revision is being respectfully submitted before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is contrary to both facts and law and is therefore liable to be set aside. The court failed to consider that the non-applicant, who is employed as a Senior Technician at the Electric Loco Shed, South East Central Railway, Bhilai, draws a monthly salary of approximately ₹80,000/- along with other allowances, making him financially capable of maintaining the revisionist (wife) and their three children. It is the moral and legal responsibility of the non-applicant to bear the educational expenses and overall upbringing of his children, including school fees, tuition, and personality development activities. Despite this, the non-applicant has neglected his duties and has not been providing sufficient funds, which has severely impacted the children’s education and extracurricular development. The applicant has been forced to sell her jewelry and take loans from acquaintances to cover essential educational expenses, while the non-applicant continues to misuse his income on bad habits, including alcohol consumption, and avoids his responsibilities deliberately. The trial court overlooked these crucial facts and failed 4 to properly evaluate the documents and evidence submitted, including proof of rising expenses and the applicants’ financial hardship. Furthermore, the non-applicant’s failure to pay school and tuition fees, coupled with the applicant’s reliance on borrowed funds, constitutes a valid and sufficient reason for granting maintenance. Ignoring inflation and real household needs, the court wrongly assumed that ₹10,000 to ₹15,000/- per month is adequate for the entire family, which is wholly insufficient. Hence, the impugned order suffers from serious legal and factual errors and deserves to be quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rightly dismissed the maintenance application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., after a thorough appreciation of the facts, pleadings, and evidence on record. The Court correctly found that the applicant failed to establish sufficient legal grounds to claim ₹50,000/- per month as maintenance, particularly when no credible documentary evidence was submitted regarding the alleged income of the non-applicant or the actual educational expenses of the children. It was further noted that both parties are still residing together, and the non-applicant has been contributing to household expenses, although the applicant claims the amount is insufficient. Moreover, the Court took into account that the non-applicant had not willfully neglected his family and that partial financial support 5 had been extended. The applicant, despite making several claims, did not prove that the non-applicant entirely failed in his duty or that she was unable to maintain herself and the children with the support already being provided. The order reflects a balanced consideration of the parties’ financial circumstances and responsibilities, and there appears to be no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan