1 2025:CGHC:41442 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1065 of 2024 1. Smt. Sheela Sahu W/o Janaklal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Bengali Camp, Labourhatment, Ward No. 10, House No. 260 Bacheli, Tahsil Bacheli, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 2. Himanshi Sahu D/o Janaklal Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Bengali Camp, Labourhatment, Ward No. 10, House No. 260 Bacheli, Tahsil Bacheli, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 3. Vijay Sahu S/o Janaklal Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt Sheela Sahu, R/o Bengali Camp, Labourhatment, Ward No. 10, House No. 260 Bacheli, Tahsil Bacheli, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Janaklal Sahu S/o Sukhpal Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o R.E.S. Colony, Near Durga Mandir, 176/4 Bacheli, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to modified the vide order dated 06.07.2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dantewada, District- South Dantewada passed in Misc Criminal Case No. 87/2023, wherein it was held by the court that applicant no.1 was entitled for 10,000 Rs. Per month and applicant no. 2 & 3 for Rs. 4000-4000 to each or Rs.18000/- per month for the maintenance of applicants under the provisions of section 125 of Cr.P.C.. and application of the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. be allowed and award the maintenances tune of Rs 30,000/- per month. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicants filed an application under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband. The marriage of the applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 03.05.2002 at Gram Parsuli, P.S. Devri, District Balod, as per social customs and rituals. After marriage, both husband and wife resided at Rampur Camp, Kirandul, District Dantewada, and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with one daughter, namely, Himanshi Sahu (born on 10.06.2005), and one son, namely, Vijay Sahu (born on 16.08.2009). Both children are presently residing with applicant no. 1. After six months of marriage, the respondent secured employment in N.M.D.C. Since then, his behaviour towards applicant no. 1 changed. The respondent unnecessarily started abusing, quarrelling with, and assaulting applicant 3 no. 1. He developed a habit of daily drinking, roaming around without reason, and neglecting the needs of the applicants. Whenever applicant no. 1 raised objections regarding his conduct and neglect of maintenance, the respondent became agitated and misbehaved with her. Upon inquiring into the change in the respondent’s behaviour, applicant No. 1 came to know that the respondent was involved in extramarital affairs with other women. Due to such illicit relationships, the respondent completely neglected applicant no. 1 and started spending his entire income on such affairs. When applicant no. 1 confronted him, the respondent physically assaulted her and finally abandoned her in May 2023. The applicant No. 1, while following the respondent to verify his extramarital relationship, caught him with another woman in Kirandul on 18.06.2023, regarding which she lodged a complaint at the Kirandul Police Station. Since then, applicant No. 1 has been residing separately with her children and is completely destitute. The respondent is employed in N.M.D.C. Ltd., Bacheli Complex. As per the salary slip of April 2023, his gross salary amounts to Rs. 1,35,492/- per month, and after deductions, he receives Rs. 72,370/- per month. 4. Learned Family Court, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective, has erroneously awarded only Rs. 18,000/- per month towards maintenance to all the applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 06.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dantewada, District South Dantewada (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 87/2023, whereby an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month has been awarded to applicant no. 1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month each to applicant nos. 2 and 3, is bad in law and has been passed without properly 4 appreciating the record and evidence available on file. She submits that the respondent used to harass applicant No. 1, humiliate her in every conversation, and one day even threw her out of the matrimonial house. Learned Family Court itself has recorded in the impugned judgment that the respondent earns between Rs. 84,000/- to Rs. 1,05,000/- per month. She also submits that the quantum of interim maintenance awarded is erroneous, inadequate, and contrary to settled legal principles. It is therefore liable to be set aside, and the quantum of maintenance deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- per month. Learned Family Court failed to take into consideration the rising cost of education of the children. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate the standard of living of the applicants and awarded maintenance without considering the same. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel, for the applicants. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and awarded maintenance of Rs. 10000/- to the applicant No. 1 and Rs. 4000 – 4000/- to the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 each, observing the income, social and economic status of both parties and the current price index, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the 5 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. Sd/- (RameshSinha) Chief Justice Akhil