1 2025:CGHC:42058 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1027 of 2025 1 - Smt. Hema Bhandekar W/o Suraj Bhandekar Aged About 31 Years R/ o Village Komakhan, P.S. Komakhan, Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund C.G. 2 - Luv Bhandekar S/o Suraj Bhandekar Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Smt. Hema Bhandekar, R/o Village Komakhan, P.S. Komakhan, Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund C.G. ... Applicants versus Suraj Bhandekar S/o Madhavlal Bhandekar Aged About 36 Years R/o Block Colony, Ward No. 6, Arang, Infront Of Bandhan Bank, Arang, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the court below and for hearing arguments be pleased to allow this revision and modify the order passed by the Learned Family Court Mahasamund (C.G.) in the interest of Justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband, stating that their marriage was solemnized about ten years ago as per Hindu rites, and out of the wedlock two children, namely Aditya Bhandekar and Luv Bhandekar, were born, of whom the elder son Aditya resides with the respondent. It was alleged that due to dowry demands and harassment by the respondent and his family members, applicant No.1 was assaulted and driven out of the matrimonial home on 17.06.2023, and later on 03.09.2023 the respondent forcibly took away the elder son under the pretext of study. It was further pleaded that the applicant, engaged in a private job and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month, is facing financial hardship, while her mother-in-law, a government teacher, earns Rs. 90,000/- per month, and hence maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- was sought. The respondent filed a reply denying all allegations and contending that the applicant herself behaved cruelly, left the matrimonial home voluntarily, and that he is already under financial burden of bank loans with monthly installments of Rs. 16,000/-. Upon considering the pleadings and evidence, the Learned Family Court, Mahasamund, by order dated 08.04.2025 partly allowed the application, granting maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2 alone. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the matter in its proper perspective and ignored that applicant No.1 was subjected 3 to cruelty, dowry demands, and repeated physical and mental assault, and despite such treatment continued to reside in the matrimonial home until she was forcibly driven out along with the children. The finding that the applicant is residing separately without justifiable reason is erroneous, as the elder son Aditya was forcibly taken away by the respondent, making it impossible for her to reside with him. The Court further failed to consider that the respondent, despite having sufficient means, has neglected and refused to maintain the applicants as contemplated under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and except for oral allegations, has produced no cogent evidence to show otherwise. The applicant has always been willing to reside in the matrimonial home and refrained from lodging complaints earlier only to protect the dignity of the family in society. The meagre amount of Rs. 4,000/- awarded only in favour of applicant No.2, a minor child of 8 years, is wholly inadequate considering his education, maintenance, and the status and lifestyle of the parties. The Learned Court ought to have allowed the claim in its entirety, but instead passed an order based on conjectures and surmises, which is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicants had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband, alleging cruelty, dowry demands, and forcible separation, and claimed maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The respondent, however, 4 filed his reply denying all allegations, asserting that the applicant herself behaved cruelly, left the matrimonial home voluntarily, and that he was already burdened with heavy loan liabilities of Rs. 16,000/- per month. Upon due consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the Learned Family Court, Mahasamund, by order dated 08.04.2025, found no justifiable reason to grant maintenance in favour of applicant No.1 and rightly held that she was residing separately without sufficient cause. At the same time, keeping in view the welfare of the minor child, applicant No.2, the Court partly allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month towards his maintenance. The order is thus based on proper appreciation of facts and circumstances, balances the rights of both parties, and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 6. Considering the submission 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan