1 2025:CGHC:13181 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1207 of 2024 1 - Bhagwat Rao S/o Shri Sattau Rao Aged About 34 Years Occupation- Labour, R/o Village- Bajrang Chowk Gatwapara Kasdol, Post, Thana And Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Neetu Rao (Shilpa) W/o Shri Bhagwat Rao Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Kaidimuda Raigarh, Tahsil And Distt.- Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Minor Tanmay Rao S/o Shri Bhagwat Rao Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Neetu Rao. R/o Village- Kaidimuda Raigarh, Tahsil And Distt.- Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Ankush Soni, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 19/03/2025 Applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 8.10.2024 passed in M.Cr.Case No. F-88/2022 whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh has allowed the application filed by the 2 non-applicants under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded Rs. 4,000/- and 2,000/- (total Rs. 6,000/-) per month as maintenance to the non- applicants. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family court, Raigarh has passed the impugned order which is contrary to the mandate of Section 125 Cr.P.C. because the non-applicants are residing separately without any sufficient cause. He submits that the monthly income of the applicant is not as such where he can pay the amount of maintenance to the non-applicants. Counsel for the applicant submits that this order is illegal and stay may be granted in favour of the applicant against the said order. 3. Counsel for the non-applicants opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that the non-applicants are residing separately with sufficient cause however, the learned Family Court failed to consider the income of the applicant as the non-applicants have failed to prove by adducing any documentary evidence. It is the averment of the counsel for the non-applicants that the applicant is a labourer and earns Rs. 300/- per day, owner of a pick up van from which he earns Rs. 24,000/- per month and and earns Rs. 30,000/- from agriculture. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. On the last date of hearing ie. 8.11.2024, notice was issued to the respondent and looking to the inter se dispute between the parties, matter was referred to the Mediation Centre for making an effort to resolve the issue. In compliance of the said order, three opportunities were given to the parties but they did not remain present. 3 6. Learned trial court has held that the applicant is a labourer and also owns a pickup van from which he earns sufficient income. Thus, it has been held that the non-applicants have no source of income and are not able to maintain, looking to the present cost of living they are entitled for the maintenance amount from the applicant. 7. The learned Trial Court has awarded Rs. 4,000/- as maintenance to the wife/non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- to son/non-applicant No.2. Thus, looking to the socio-economic status of the parties, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court has not committed any illegality or any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. Therefore, this Court finds that the order impugned requires no interference from this Court. 8. Resultantly, the revision filed by the applicant for setting aside the order impugned is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.22 10:48:58 +0530