1 2025:CGHC:39149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 969 of 2025 1 - Priyanka Jaiswal W/o Chandan Jaiswal Aged About 27 Years R/o Bazarpara, Village And Post Tara, District Surajpur (C.G.) At Present Address In The House Of Durga Prasad Sahu, Ramgarh Road, Kabir Chowk, Udaipur, Police Station Udaipur, District Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Pari Jaiswal D/o Chandan Jaiswal Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Her Natural Gaurdian Namely Priyanka Jaiswal W/o Chandan Jaiswal, Aged About 27 Years (Applicant No. 1 Herein), R/o Bazarpara, Village And Post Tara, District Surajpur (C.G.) At Present Address In The House Of Durga Prasad Sahu, Ramgarh Road, Kabir Chowk, Udaipur, Police Station Udaipur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Chandan Jaiswal S/o Late Surendra Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 32 Years R/o Vijay Nagar Bank Colony, Ward No. 12, Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Govind Prasad, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and pleased to modify the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Cri. Case No. 67/2024 by enhancing the quantum of compensation. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the instant case from the leaned family Court for its kind perusal, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants herein had moved an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of maintenance against the non-applicant/husband claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 23,000/- per month stating inter alia that the marriage between the applicant No.1 and non- applicant was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs on 20.06.2020 in the presence of the family members and relatives of both the parties. Both the parties were happy and were enjoying happy married life and out of their wedlock, a daughter namely Pari Jaiswal was born on 14.04.2021. After some time of their marriage, the husband of the applicant No.1 and other family members was started threatening /torturing to her in the name of demand of dowry and also assaulted her. The applicants have been expelled out from her matrimonial house by the husband and the family members and since then she is residing separately with her minor daughter from her husband. She has no sources of income to maintain herself and her minor daughter and she is fully dependent upon the others. The husband is not taking care of and also not maintaining to her. She 3 further stated that the husband’s family members were committed marpit with her for non fulfilling their demand due to the aforesaid reasons, she left her matrimonial home and was taken to her parental home by her father, since then she is living separately. It is further allege that her husband did not maintain her and her minor daughter. Her husband is having handsome income i.e. Rs. 40000/- per month as he is working as Manager in Tata Capital Durg, apart from that, he has agriculture land and is earning Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court concerned, sought maintenance amount of Rs. 23000/- per month for herself and her minor daughter from the husband. 3. After receiving the notice from the learned Family Court, the husband filed his return denying the contention put forth by the applicant except the admitted facts stating inter alia that his wife left matrimonial home voluntarily and residing separately at her parental house without any sufficient reason. He tried several times to take her back to her matrimonial house but she refused to come back. It was further stated that he and his family members have never threatened in the name of dowry and allegations in respect of the dowry is false. He further denied that allegations in regard to cruelty and dowry harassment. He is working as CRB and used to earn Rs. 9750/- per month. He has no agriculture land. 4. The parties were examined their witnesses before the leaned Family to prove their cases. After hearing the argument of the parties and after due consideration, the learned Family Court vide its order 4 dated 01.07.2025 has partly allowed the application filed by the applicants whereby directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to the applicant No.1 namely Priyanka Jaiswal and to the tune of Rs. 1000/- per month to the applicant No.2 namely Ku. Pari Jaiswal as maintenance (Total 4000/- per month as maintenance). Hence, this revision petition for enhancement of maintenance amount. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the learned Family Court has failed to see that there is no independent sources of income to the applicant No.1 Priyanka Jaiswal and the amount awarded by the learned Family Court is a lower side. He further submits that it is proved that the wife is living separately due to the harassment given by the husband and his family members. The applicant No.1 is unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter. The learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the case and documents before passing the impugned order. The applicants have duly proved their case beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, their application for grant of maintenance is liable to be allowed entirely. The leaned Family Court has overlooked that the applicants are living separately in a rental house from the non- applicant and the non-applicant not taking care to them and the applicant No.1 has no source of income and she has a big responsibility to taking care maintenance of her minor daughter, this facts has not been considered while passing the impugned order. The learned Family Court also erred in granting very low amount on the part of expenses for filing of the case, it may also be 5 modified/enhanced by this Court. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be modified/set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record by both parties, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹3000/- per month to the applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1000/- per month to the applicant No.2/daughter. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. The impugned order reflects a just and fair assessment made by the Family Court upon appreciation of the material available on record. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding 6 recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal