1 2025:CGHC:36499 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1075 of 2023 1 - Smt. Versha Chauhan W/o Shri Gaurav Singh Chauhan Aged About 24 Years D/o Shri Pawan Singh Thakur, R/o House Of Pawan Singh Thakur, Chhattisgarh Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Master Shivay Singh Chauhan @ Garva Pratap Singh Aged About 04years, Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Versha Chauhan W/o Shri Gaurav Singh Chauhan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o House Of Pawan Singh Thakur, Chhattisgarh Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipurl, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Shri Gaurav Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Jitendra Singh Chauhan Aged About 30 Years R/o Ramkutir Colony, Saddu, Police Station Vidhansabha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, learned counsel for the non-applicant. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to modify the impugned order dated 28.08.2023, passed by the court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Raipur District: Raipur (C.G.), and enhanced the maintenance amount looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of ₹10,000 per month from the non-applicant, stating that their marriage was solemnized on 17.01.2017 as per Hindu customs at Chhattisgarh Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur, and that due to continuous harassment and dowry demands, the applicant wife was compelled to reside at her parental home with no independent source of income. It was pleaded that the non-applicant has sufficient income to maintain both the wife and the minor child, for whom maintenance of ₹7,000 and ₹3,000 per month respectively was sought. The non-applicant denied the allegations in his reply. After framing issues and recording evidence, the learned trial court, by order dated 28.08.2023, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of ₹3,000 to the wife and ₹2,000 to the child per month. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount, the applicants have preferred the present criminal revision seeking enhancement of maintenance. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court suffers from illegality and material irregularity, inasmuch as the Court has failed to properly appreciate the pleadings, oral evidence, and documentary material available on record. The Family Court, while acknowledging the non-applicant’s sufficient earning capacity, has nonetheless awarded a meagre amount of maintenance, which is wholly inadequate to meet even the basic needs of the applicants in the present cost of living. The Court failed to consider that the applicant wife has no independent source of income and is solely dependent upon the non-applicant for her sustenance and that of the minor child. The quantum of maintenance determined is arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law, which require maintenance to be commensurate with the status of the parties and the income of the husband. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Raipur District: Raipur, (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, after duly appreciating the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence of both parties, rightly concluded that the applicants were entitled to partial maintenance and awarded a 4 reasonable sum keeping in view the financial capacity of the non- applicant as well as the needs of the wife and minor child. The Court took into account the admitted facts of marriage and paternity of the child, the allegations of harassment and dowry demand, and the non-applicant’s earning from his occupation, while also considering his contention regarding the limited nature of his income and other liabilities. Balancing these factors, the Family Court awarded maintenance of ₹3,000 to the wife and ₹2,000 to the child per month, which is fair and just in the circumstances and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference. 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 trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan