1 2025:CGHC:41481 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1221 of 2024 1 - Smt. Namita Gupta W/o Jaiprakash Deri Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Gadhurmariya P.S. And Tahsil Pussaur District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Divyansh S/o Jaiprakash Dehri Aged About 10 Years Through Her Guardian Mother Smt. Namita Gupta R/o Village Gadhurmariya P.S. And Tahsil Pussaur District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Jaiprakash Dehri S/o Shri Sitraram Dehri Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Darripali P.S. And Tahsil Pussaur District- Raigarh ( C.G.). ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set-aside the impugned order dated 13.9.2024 passed by the Learned Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.) and the maintenance 3000/- rupees granted to applicant no. 2 should be enhance and also grant to maintenance to applicant no. 1, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant No.1/wife has moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to herself of Rs. 20,000/- per month and for her Son Rs. 20,000/- total of Rs. 40,000/-.As per the averment of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is that the marriage of the applicant No.1 and non-applicant was solemnized on 17.01.2020 at Village Gadhumariya Tah. Pussaur District Raigarh accordance to Hindu Rights and Rituals and out of wedlock, one child minor Divyansh was born. At the time of marriage, the parents of the applicant No.1 has given some House hold things as Stridhan which is in possession of non-applicant. After some time of marriage, the family members of her in law's used to harass in the name of dowry as she bring less dowry when the demand of dowry was not fulfilled, they used to taunt her. One day they called meeting and they also called the applicant No.1 when she reached there they lock her in the Room and abusing her they snatched her mobile even they threatening to kill her. On 04.04.2021, when she was pregnant of three months they leave her in parental house, they told her until she will not bring one lac rupees cash and one Motor Cycle they will not 3 accept her in which she filed a complaint in Police Station Jutmill and Privar Salah Kendra Raigarh. The non-applicant has left her without any reasons and not taking care of her and her son therefore, she is depend upon parents and there is no any source of income. The non-applicant has 20 Acre Agriculture Lands and running a Hotel and one paddy threshing machine and earning from its 50 Lac rupees per Annum. Therefore, she prays that her application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to herself of Rs. 20,000/- per month and for her daughter Rs. 20,000/- total of Rs. 40,000/- may be allowed. The non-applicant has filed reply and denied all the averments raised by the applicant No.1. 4. After framing the issues and considering the evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 13.09.2024, rejected the maintenance claim of applicant No. 1 on the ground that the applicant No.1 failed to prove her case, the learned Family Court holding that she could not filed any documents relating to income of Husband and she has no any reason to leave separately whereby partly allowed the claim of applicant No. 2, who is minor son, granting a maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the learned Family Court has eared to hold that the income has not proved by the applicant wife. He further submits that the learned Family Court has eared to hold that without rhyme and reason she is residing separately. The applicant wife has made complaint and lodged the FIR against the family members of the non-applicant for harassment 4 and demand of Dowry. The learned Family Court has not considered that the non-applicant has 20 Acre Agriculture Lands and running a Hotel and one paddy threshing machine and earning from its 50 Lac rupees per Annum and the maintenance of Rs. 3000/- granted to applicant No. 2 is very low side, it should be enhance and also grant to maintenance to applicant No. 1. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be modified or set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Family Court concerned, it transpires that an amount of ₹3,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance to applicant No. 2 (the son). At the same time, the application of applicant No. 1 (the wife) was rejected on the ground that the applicant No.1 failed to prove her case, the learned Family Court holding that she could not filed any documents relating to income of Husband and she has no any reason to leave separately. In such circumstances, applicant No. 1 is not entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant. It appears that the learned trial Court, upon proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting maintenance solely to the minor child, 5 considering his dependent status and the legal obligation of the father to maintain him. The absence of any finding or relief in favor of applicant No. 1 indicates that the Court did not find sufficient grounds to allow her claim for maintenance, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be either erroneous or unjustified. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal