1 2025:CGHC:28201 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1186 of 2019 1 - Smt. Jyoti Kothari W/o Shri Gaukaran Kothari Aged About 26 Years R/ o Patewa, Tehsil And Police Station Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Lokeshwar Kothari S/o Shri Gaukaran Kothari Aged About 5 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jyoti Kothari. R/o Patewa, Tehsil And Police Station Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Gaukaran Kothari S/o Shri Kartikram Kothari Resident of Thelkabandha, Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarhl. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, learned counsel the applicants. Also heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: 1) call for the entire records from the Courts below; 2) set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 22.8.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.576/2016 by 2nd Additional Principal Judge of Family Court Raipur and grant the maintenance as prayed by the applicant No.1 and also modify the maintenance granted to the applicant No.2 to the extent of granting maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, as prayed by them in their application for grant of maintenance, in the interest of justice. 3) grant any other relief(s) in favour of the applicant, which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that in the present case, the applicant No.1, legally wedded to the respondent on 17.03.2013, and applicant No.2, their child born on 01.04.2014, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Raipur, seeking maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month. It was alleged that despite fulfilling all marital obligations and dowry demands, the applicant No.1 was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty by the respondent and his family, including demands for money and assault after consumption of alcohol. Several complaints were filed, and even after brief reconciliation through counseling, the applicant was again harassed and ultimately forced to leave the matrimonial home. She has no source of income and is solely taking care of the 3 child, while the respondent is financially capable, earning ₹5–7 lakhs per annum. The respondent, in reply, denied the allegations, claimed to be a daily wage laborer earning ₹100 per day, and alleged that the applicant voluntarily left the house and is not entitled to maintenance. The Family Court, by order dated 22.08.2019, dismissed the maintenance claim of applicant No.1 and allowed ₹2,000/- per month for applicant No.2. Aggrieved by the decision, the present petition has been filed on the ground that the Family Court erred in appreciating the facts and evidence on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is an able-bodied man earning ₹5–7 lakhs annually, while the applicant No.1 has no independent source of income and is solely responsible for the care and upbringing of applicant No.2. Despite several reports of cruelty filed by applicant No.1 with the concerned police authorities, the Court overlooked the fact that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to continuous harassment and torture by the respondent. The Court erred in relying upon unproven documents filed by the respondent and wrongly concluded that applicant No.1 left the matrimonial home willfully and is living in adultery, without any cogent evidence on record to support such findings. The applicant had clearly pleaded and proved her inability to maintain herself, which should have been duly considered. Furthermore, the 4 meager maintenance of ₹2,000/- awarded to applicant No.2 is insufficient and unreasonable, particularly when the applicant No.1 is solely bearing all educational and day-to-day expenses of the child. The Family Court ought to have awarded at least ₹10,000/- per month towards the maintenance of applicant No.2, in view of the respondent’s financial capacity and legal responsibility. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal 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 order passed by the learned Family Court on 22.08.2019 appears to be just and well-reasoned based on the facts and evidence presented. The Court rightly assessed that applicant No.1, despite alleging cruelty and financial incapacity, failed to establish that she was unable to maintain herself or that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home without sufficient cause. The respondent, though alleged to be financially well-off, claimed to be a low-income laborer, and the applicants could not substantiate their claim regarding his exact income. Considering the conflicting assertions and lack of conclusive proof regarding the respondent’s income and alleged cruelty, the Court exercised its discretion judiciously by rejecting the 5 maintenance claim of applicant No.1 and granting ₹2,000/- per month to applicant No.2, recognizing the respondent’s continuing obligation towards his child. 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan