1 2025:CGHC:32937 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 57 of 2022 1 - Smt. Devshri Tiwari W/o Shri Virendra Tiwari Aged About 29 Years R/ o Ward No. 40, Lal Bagicha, Subhashnagar Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Akshat Tiwari S/o Virendra Tiwari Aged About 5 Years Through Next Friend (Natural Guardian) Mother Smt. Devshri Tiwari, W/o Virendra Tiwari, R/o Ward No. 40, Lal Bagicha, Subhashnagar Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Virendra Tiwari S/o Byasnarayan Tiwari Aged About 36 Years R/o Near Lalpur Leprosy Hospital, Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Vineet K. Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel the applicants. Also heard Mr. Vineet K. Pandey, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record from the courts below as well as Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2021, passed in MJC No. 146/2018, by the Learned Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.), Any other relief/s which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, be also granted in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Dhamtari, seeking monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 from the non-applicant. It is an undisputed fact that the marriage between applicant no.1 and the non-applicant was solemnized on 30.04.2012 as per Hindu rites, and applicant no.2 was born on 21.10.2013. The applicants alleged that after marriage, they lived with the non-applicant and his parents, who harassed applicant no.1 over inadequate dowry. Following the birth of applicant no.2 through cesarean section, the non-applicant assaulted applicant no.1 while intoxicated, leading to serious medical complications. She was taken for treatment by her father, and later, efforts at reconciliation failed. Although a brief compromise took place through Mahila Paramarsh Kendra, the harassment continued at Pali and later in Raipur, where the non- 3 applicant threatened applicant no.1 at knife-point, forcing her to leave and take shelter with her parents from September 2017. The applicants claimed the non-applicant was earning ₹50,000 per month from salary and rent, while they had no means of livelihood. The non-applicant denied all allegations, claiming the applicant left without sufficient cause and that he is unemployed and dependent on his parents. The learned Family Court, by order dated 30.11.2021 in MJC No. 146/2018, rejected the maintenance claim of applicant no.1 on the ground of voluntary separation and awarded only ₹3,000 per month to applicant no.2. Aggrieved by this order, the applicants have preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by Applicant No.1. The Court failed to consider the well-settled legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., particularly in relation to assessing the income of the non-applicant and determining a just and reasonable quantum of maintenance. The Family Court did not make any specific finding regarding the non-applicant’s financial capacity or status as a NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) individual. Moreover, the Court overlooked the material evidence on record which clearly established that Applicant No.1 was subjected to repeated acts of cruelty and domestic violence, and had sufficient cause to live separately. The mere willingness of the non-applicant to cohabit cannot negate the legitimate apprehension to Applicant No.1’s life 4 and safety. The complaints made by her to the police and Mahila Paramarsh Kendra further substantiate her claim. In addition, the learned Family Court has erred in awarding only a meager amount of ₹3,000 as maintenance for Applicant No.2, without considering the non-applicant’s financial capacity and the standard of living to which the child is entitled. Hence, the impugned order is unjust, perverse, and liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, (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 learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the facts, evidence, and legal position while passing the order dated 30.11.2021 in MJC No. 146/2018. After considering the material on record, the Court found that applicant no.1 was residing separately without sufficient and justifiable cause, and therefore, rightly rejected her claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court took note of the non-applicant’s consistent stand that he was willing to cohabit and support the applicants, but applicant no.1 chose to live separately without lawful justification. The allegations of cruelty and harassment were not substantiated through cogent evidence, and the non-applicant’s denial of income and claim of unemployment 5 were not effectively rebutted by the applicants. However, in the interest of the welfare of the minor child (applicant no.2), the Court judiciously granted a reasonable maintenance amount of ₹3,000 per month. The order reflects a balanced approach, taking into account both the financial circumstances and the legal obligations of the parties, and does not warrant any interference. 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. 10. 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