1 2025:CGHC:41480 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1226 of 2024 1. Neelam Gupta W/o Vikas Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kapoo, Tahsil - Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Astha Gupta D/o Vikas Gupta Aged About 7 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt Neelam Gupta W/o Vikas Gupta, R/o Village Kapoo, Tahsil - Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Vikas Gupta S/o Kaushal Gupta Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Guturama, P.S. and Tahsil - Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Indira Nagar, Mohan Talkies Road, Jamnipali, Tahsil - Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. V.B. Soni, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.170/2021, whereby the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C preferred by the applicant has been PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.20 10:50:21 +0530 2 rejected with respect to applicant No.1/wife and directed the non- applicant to pay amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant No.2/daughter as maintenance. 2. The brief facts of the case is that it is an admitted fact that the non- applicant is the husband of Applicant No. 1 and the father of Applicant No. 2. The marriage between Applicant No. 1 and the non- applicant was solemnized on 05.12.2024. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Learned Family Court, stating that after the marriage, Applicant No. 1 went to reside with the non-applicant to fulfill her matrimonial obligations. However, soon after, the non-applicant and his family members began subjecting her to cruelty over dowry demands. In February 2020, the non-applicant ousted her from the matrimonial home. Since then, she has been residing with her minor daughter (Applicant No. 2) at her parental home. Applicant No. 1 has no source of income, while the non-applicant owns 15 acres of agricultural land and is also engaged in real estate business. Despite his financial capacity, he has not paid any maintenance to the applicants, prompting them to seek relief under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. Despite being duly served, the non-applicant failed to appear, and the Family Court proceeded ex-parte. Vide order dated 22.03.2022, the Court directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 7,000/- to Applicant No. 1 and Rs. 5,000/- to Applicant No. 2 per month as maintenance. Subsequently, the non-applicant filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 22.03.2022, which was allowed by the Family Court. Thereafter, the applicants filed an application for interim 3 maintenance. Vide order dated 04.07.2022, the Family Court directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month each to both applicants. After setting aside the ex-parte order, fresh notice was issued to the non-applicant. However, he again failed to appear, and the Court once again proceeded ex-parte and passed the impugned order dated 09.07.2024. By the said order, the Family Court rejected the maintenance claim of Applicant No. 1 and granted only Rs. 2,000/- per month to Applicant No. 2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 09.07.2024 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court erred in rejecting the application of Applicant No. 1, especially when, by an earlier order dated 22.03.2022, it had granted her Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance after holding that she was living separately with just cause. The learned Family Court failed to consider that Applicant No. 1 was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands by the non-applicant, leading to her being ousted from the matrimonial home. She has been compelled to live at her parental house since then. The Family Court overlooked the fact that Applicant No. 1 has no independent source of income, while the non-applicant owns 15 acres of agricultural land, runs a real estate business and a provision store, and earns approximately Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The maintenance application was initially filed in 2021. The Family Court had earlier granted maintenance on 22.03.2022. Though that order was set aside upon the non- applicant’s application (being ex-parte), he once again failed to 4 appear, and the matter proceeded ex-parte. This repeated absence highlights the non-applicant’s intent to harass the applicants and delay proceedings. The maintenance granted to Applicant No. 2, a school-going child, is insufficient considering the current cost of living, which includes expenses for food, clothing, books, tuition, and school fees. As the legally wedded wife and daughter of the non- applicant, the applicants are entitled to a standard of living comparable to that of the non-applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present 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/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti