1 2025:CGHC:32620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 887 of 2021 1 - Lilabai W/o Yudhisthir Pareshwar Aged About 27 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village- Chuipali, Post And Police Station- Singghoda, Tahsil- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgar. 2 - Minor Kapil S/o Yudhisthir Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Their Mother Lilabai, Caste Gond, R/o Village- Chuipali, Post and Police Station- Singghoda, Tahsil- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgar. 3 - Minor Rashmi D/o Yudhisthir Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Their Mother Lilabai, Caste Gond, R/o Village- Chuipali, Post And Police Station- Singghoda, Tahsil- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgar. ... Applicants versus Yudhisthir Pareshwar S/o Prahalad Pareshwar Aged About 35 Years Caste- Gond, Occupation- Service, R/o Village- Chapiya, Post- Bhanwarpur, Tahsil- Basna, Police Out Post Bhanwarpur, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 1. Heard Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, learned counsel the applicants. Also heard Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 may kindly be modified to the extent of claim of the wife for grant of maintenance and the applicant No. 1 may kindly be granted maintenance. Further, maintenance amount awarded to the applicant No. 2 and 3 may kindly be enhanced in terms of prayer in the application U/s 125 of the Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant No. 1, being the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, along with her two minor children (applicants No. 2 and 3), filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of ₹15,000/- per month (₹5,000/- each) from the non-applicant. The marriage between applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant was solemnized on 11.05.2011, and two children were born out of the wedlock. It was alleged that after two years of marriage, the non-applicant husband began physically and mentally abusing the applicant wife under the influence of alcohol. A meeting was held on 01.12.2019 to resolve the dispute, but the husband allegedly threatened to kill the applicants, forcing them to reside at the wife’s maternal home. A report was also lodged at 3 Singghoda Police Station on 07.10.2019. The applicant claimed the non-applicant is financially well-off, being a government school teacher earning ₹33,000/- per month and owning 30–35 acres of agricultural land yielding approximately ₹10 lakhs annually. In response, the non-applicant denied the allegations and claimed that the applicant wife is living in adultery with one Jugal, and left the matrimonial home voluntarily. He also stated that he earns only ₹25,000/- per month and supports his parents and sister. A community meeting was held on 02.03.2020 for reconciliation, but the applicant allegedly refused to return, claiming she had accepted Jugal as her husband. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, the learned Family Court dismissed the wife’s claim for maintenance on the ground that she is living in adultery, but awarded ₹3,000/- per month as maintenance to the two minor children. Aggrieved by this order, the applicants have preferred the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances of the case and deserves to be set aside. The Court below erred in law in concluding that the applicant No. 1 (wife) is living in adultery without any conclusive proof, as the non-applicant failed to establish the allegation with cogent evidence, and the finding has been recorded merely on presumption. The dismissal of maintenance claim of the wife solely on such unproven grounds is unsustainable. Furthermore, the learned Court has awarded only a meager amount of ₹3,000/- per 4 month to each of the minor children (applicants No. 2 and 3), which is grossly inadequate considering their age, growing needs, and the fact that the non-applicant is financially capable, drawing a substantial salary. The learned Court failed to consider that the children require special care and attention, and the amount awarded does not meet their reasonable expenses. Hence, the impugned order suffers from legal and factual infirmities and is liable to be set aside, with a suitable enhancement of maintenance in favor of the minor children and grant of maintenance to the wife. 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 Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.) Camp Court in Saraipali District- Mahasamund (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 facts and evidence on record and passed a just and reasoned order. After evaluating the pleadings and testimony of both parties, the Court found credible and consistent material suggesting that applicant No. 1, the wife, was living in adultery with one Jugal and had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home. The Court rightly held that without sufficient justification for living separately, and in view of her adulterous conduct, the applicant wife was not entitled to 5 maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as such conduct falls within the statutory exception. Moreover, the Court, while balancing the welfare of the minor children, awarded ₹3,000/- per month each to applicants No. 2 and 3, which is fair and appropriate considering the non-applicant’s stated income and family responsibilities. 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 record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan