1 2025:CGHC:25105 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1138 of 2017 Aitwar Say S/o Shri Mansay, Aged About 41 Years Caste Panika, R/o Bardar, Thana And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt Sushila Pankaj W/o Aitwar Say, Aged About 36 Years Caste Panika, R/o Bardar, Thana And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Shabnam D/o Aitwar Say, Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Sushila Pankaj, Aged About 36 Years, W/o Aitwar Say, Caste Panika, R/o Bardar, Thana And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh 3 - Karan Kumar Pankaj S/o Aitwar Say, Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Sushila Pankaj, Aged About 36 Years, W/o Aitwar Say, Caste Panika, R/o Bardar, Thana And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Pallvi D/o Aitwar Say, Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Sushila Pankaj, Aged About 36 Years, W/o Aitwar Say, Caste Panika, R/o Bardar, Thana And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 For Applicant(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 02.11.2017 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, District – Manendragarn, District - Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.50/2017, whereby, the learned Family Court granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- (each) to respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent No.1 married the applicant 17 years ago, and respondent No. 2, 3, and 4 are their children. The applicant works as an Assistant Teacher in the Panchayat department earning a monthly salary of Rs. 38,000. It has been alleged that whenever she became pregnant, the applicant would send her to her parental home for delivery and never bore the expenses, he would abuse and physically assault her. On August 30, 2016, he assaulted her and threw her out of their home in village Baradar. She filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Baikunthpur, who ordered the Khadgawan Police to take preventive action against the applicant. On September 12, 2016, the applicant entered into a compromise agreement, promising to take care of her and not give her any reason to complain. 3 However, his behavior didn not change, and on March 12, 2017, he again assaulted her and threw her out of the house. It is also alleged that the applicant is not providing adequate maintenance to the respondents, leaving them on the brink of starvation due to lack of income. The applicant earns a monthly salary of Rs. 38,000 as a Panchayat teacher and has agricultural land in village Baradar, generating an annual income of Rs. 3-4 lakhs. The applicant prayed for a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 20,000 (Rs. 10,000 for herself and Rs. 10,000 for the children). After taking into consideration of all facts and pleading raised by the parties, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application and granted Rs. 4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and and Rs.3,000 (each) for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 towards maintenance. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent is such a cruel person, that she always use to harass the applicant and, further had thrown the applicant from own house, the applicant has tried his level best to have a cool atmosphere, but the respondent was never interested in that. He further submits that the respondents entered in the witness box and admitted in the cross-examination, that she alongwith her children residing in the house of applicant, further applicant is residing with his sister, it is also admitted by respondent No.1 that applicant had lodged the report against her on 11.04.2017. He also submits that applicant is having responsibility of huge family and his salary is also not 4 getting regularly, he is low paid employee and it would be difficult to give maintenance. The Family Court awarded Rs.13,000/- per month as a maintenance to respondents, without complying with the provision of Family Court 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/-(each) to respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 observing that the respondent No.1 works as a School Assistant and receives a monthly honorarium of Rs. 1,200/-. The applicant, as a teacher, receives a monthly salary of approximately Rs. 24,000/- after deductions, as evident from the April, 2017 salary details. Although the applicant claimed to have paid fees for the children, he failed to produce receipts. However, the certificate of fee payment for respondent No. 3 (Exhibit P-2) from Saraswati Shishu Mandir was presented. It is evident that the applicant is not making any effort to maintain the respondents, and it is impossible for them to sustain themselves on the respondent No.1’s meager honorarium of Rs. 1,200/-. Further, it is the constitutional duty of a man to maintain his wife, children, and parents according to his social status. He further observed that the applicant stated in his examination-in-chief that he was paying Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 as part of a settlement and also covering her 5 travel expenses. However, this fact was not mentioned in his original reply, nor was it questioned by the respondent No.1 during cross-examination. Furthermore, no evidence was presented to support the claim of payment. Therefore, the Family Court come to the conclusion that respondents are unable to maintain themselves, while the applicant is physically fit and financially capable, yet he is not making any effort to provide maintenance. Considering the ages of the children - respondent No. 2 (16 years), respondent No. 3 (13 years), and respondent No. 4 (11 years) - their educational expenses will continue to increase. Taking into account all these factors, and considering that the applicant has no other dependents, it would be appropriate to award Rs. 4,000 per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 3,000 each to respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 as maintenance. 7. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 6 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil