1 2025:CGHC:40545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 526 of 2024 Naveen Chandak S/o Navratan Chandak Aged About 32 Years R/o Bagadi Mahauala, Chandak Street, Inside Goga Gate, Distt - Bikaner Rajasthan, Pin - Code -334001 Office-Naveen Chandrak And Company, In Front Of D.I.C., Office Chopra Katla, Rani Bazar, Distt - Bikaner, Rajasthan --- Applicant versus 1 - Richa Chandak W/o Shri Naveen Chandak Aged About 29 Years R/o H.No. 103, 1st Floor, Debhar Plaza, Near Fawahara Chowk, Baron Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhawaik Chandak S/o Shri Naveen Chandak Aged About 4 Years R/o H.No. 103, 1st Floor, Debhar Plaza, Near Fawahara Chowk, Baron Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Natural Gaurdion Mother Richa Chandak) --- Non-applicants Along with CRR No. 1079 of 2024 1 - Richa Chandak W/o Shri Naveen Chandak Aged About 29 Years R/o H. No. 103 1st Floor, Debhar Plaza, Near Fawhara Chowk, Baron Bazar Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhawik Chandak S/o Shri Naveen Chandak Aged About 4 Years R/o H. No. 103 1st Floor, Debhar Plaza, Near Fawhara Chowk, Baron Bazar Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ( Natural Guardian Richa Chandak ) --- Applicants Versus RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Naveen Chandak S/o Navratan Chandak Aged About 32 Years R/o Bagadi Mohalla, Chandak Street, Inside Goga Gate, District - Bikaner ( Rajisthan ) Office - Naveen Chandak And Company, Infront Of Dic Office Chopra Katla, Rani Bazar, District Bikaner ( Rajisthan ) Pin 334001. --- Non-applicant In CRR No. 526/2024 For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate In CRR No. 1079/2024 For Applicant : Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12 / 08 /20 25 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been filed against the same order, they are being decided of by this common order. 2. In the present case, an application for maintenance was filed on behalf of the wife, Richa Chandak and son Bhawik Chandak. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, vide order dated 18.10.2023, granted a monthly maintenance amount of total Rs.15,000/- to the wife, Richa Chandakand and son Bhawik Chandak. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Richa Chandak and son Bhawik Chandak, filed Criminal Revision No. 1079/2024, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be 3 enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Naveen Chandak, filed Criminal Revision No. 526/2024, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 3. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, learned counsel appearing for husband Naveen Chandak, would submit that the impugned order of the Learned Family Court is illegal and unsustainable, as it is based on presumptions without proper appreciation of evidence. The respondent No. 1 failed to adduce any cogent proof of the alleged physical or mental abuse, and there is nothing on record except her own statement to show that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home; rather, she left of her own volition. It was not established that she is incapable of maintaining herself, especially when she is professionally and highly qualified. The Learned Family Court also ignored the fact that the revisionist has always been willing to keep and maintain the respondents, and there is no evidence of neglect or refusal on his part. Furthermore, respondent No. 1 is already receiving substantial maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month, along with Rs. 8,000/- towards separate residence, under proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is beyond the financial capacity of the revisionist. Therefore, the maintenance amount deserves to be set-aside/reduced suitably. 4. Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for wife and son, would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned trial 4 Court is bad in law, illegal, arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to the settled legal principles applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate and consider the evidence available on record, thereby rendering the order unsustainable. It is submitted that the applicant, in his application, had specifically raised several material issues and contentions, each supported by facts and evidence, which were essential for a just and proper adjudication of the matter; however, the learned trial Court, without dealing with or giving cogent reasons on these issues, proceeded to pass the impugned order in a mechanical and perfunctory manner, demonstrating non- application of judicial mind, which vitiates the very foundation of the order. The impugned order dated 18.10.2023, being arbitrary and unjust, warrants interference for enhancement in the interest of justice and to ensure a life of dignity and security for the wife and son. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the wife before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance and after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 18.10.2023, whereby it was directed the husband to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance to wife and son. Being 5 aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Richa Chandak and son Bhawik Chandak, filed Criminal Revision No. 1079/2024, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Naveen Chandak, filed Criminal Revision No. 526/2024, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revisions and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the wife and son. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to and are accordingly dismissed. 9. A copy of this order as well as original record be sent to learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan