1 2025:CGHC:38449 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1112 of 2022 1. Smt. Neetu Bhagat W/o Ravindra Indwar, Aged About 26 Years By Caste- Uraon, R/o Village Chikpath Lukhi, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Aryan Kumar Indwar S/o Ravindra Indwar, Aged About 3 Years Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Neetu Bhagat, By Caste- Uraon, R/o Village Chikpath Lukhi, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicants versus Ravindra Indwar S/o Ramjan Indwar, Aged About 30 Years Caste Uraon, R/o Village Dumartoli, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) At Present R/o Ashish Nagar East, Road No. 10, Risali, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. J.K. Saxena, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this revision when the matter is called out for hearing today. 2. Heard Mr. J.K. Saxena, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.05 20:02:26 +0530 2 “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and suitably modify the order dated 15.09.2022 and direct the non-applicant to pay maintenance to the applicants from the date of application i.e. from 03.10.2019, in the interest of justice. ” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Jashpur, stating therein that the applicants are the wife and son of the respondent. The marriage of applicant No. 1 was solemnized with the respondent on 16.06.2014, and after the marriage, applicant No. 1 went to the house of the respondent to perform her matrimonial obligations. However, the respondent used to assault applicant No. 1, and on 21.08.2016, he abandoned her at the Bus Stand, Jashpur, while she was pregnant. On 17.10.2016, applicant No. 1 gave birth to a child (Applicant No. 2) at her parental home. Despite being informed about the birth of applicant No. 2, the respondent did not make any attempt to bring the applicants back. The applicants are currently residing at the parental home of applicant No. 1, and the respondent has neither made any effort to take them back nor is he providing any financial support for their livelihood. Although the respondent is employed in a private job and earns a salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month, and also possesses movable and immovable properties, he is not paying any maintenance. Hence, the applicants filed an application for maintenance. 5. After service of notice, the respondent filed a reply stating that the applicants are living separately without any reasonable cause, and 3 therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. 6. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 15.09.2022, directed the respondent to pay Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicants respectively, from the date of the order. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 15.09.2022, insofar as it relates to awarding maintenance from the date of the order, is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and is therefore liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court ought to have awarded maintenance in favour of the applicants from the date of filing the application, instead of from the date of the order. He submits that the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants on 03.10.2019, they are entitled to receive maintenance from the non- applicant with effect from 03.10.2019. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicants have no source of income and that, despite having sufficient means, the respondent has avoided maintaining them. Therefore, the applicants were compelled to file an application for maintenance, and the learned Family Court ought to have granted maintenance from the date of the application. He also submits that learned Family Court also failed to appreciate that the amount of maintenance awarded is insufficient in the current socio-economic context and deserves to be enhanced. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has allowed the application under Section 125 of 4 the CrPC filed by the applicants and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- to applicant No. 2 from the date of passing the impugned order, observing the income, social and economic status of both parties and the current price index, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. 10. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek