1 2025:CGHC:29178 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 108 of 2020 1 - Smt. Saroj Verma W/o Roshan Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o Latuwa, Police Station City Kotwali, District : Balodabazar - Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Ku. Mansi D/o Roshan Verma Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Saroj Verma, R/o Latuwa, Police Station City Kotwali, District : Balodabazar - Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Roshan Verma S/o Shri Sukdev Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Latuwa, Police Station City Kotwali, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel the applicants. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and modify / enhance impugned order RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned first Family Court Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 45/2019 and also may be granted maintenance amount sought by the applicant in prayer clause of the application under section 125 Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that in the present case, the applicant No. 1 and the respondent solemnized their marriage in the year 2003 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife, and two daughters were born out of their wedlock. However, following the birth of the second daughter, the respondent allegedly subjected the applicant to physical and mental cruelty, for which complaints were also made, and though an initial compromise was attempted, the respondent continued his abusive behavior and even attempted to commit murder by locking the room. The respondent also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Aggrieved by the circumstances and having no independent source of income, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of ₹17,000/- per month, stating that the respondent earns ₹10,000/- from his kirana shop and ₹20,000/- from agricultural land. The respondent filed a written statement denying the allegations. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application by order dated 17.12.2019, awarding ₹3,000 per month in favour of applicant no.2 (the minor daughter), and denied maintenance to applicant no.1 without properly appreciating the evidence on record. The applicant, being dissatisfied, has filed the present revision challenging the impugned order as illegal, 3 erroneous, and contrary to law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The applicant was compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to the physical and mental cruelty inflicted by the respondent. Despite this, the learned Court failed to appreciate the true circumstances and the evidence on record. The respondent is financially well-off, running a kirana shop and owning agricultural land, from which he earns approximately ₹45,000/- per month, and is thus fully capable of providing adequate maintenance. On the other hand, the applicant has no independent means of livelihood or source of income. The learned Court below erred in assessing the respondent’s income and awarded an unreasonably low maintenance amount, ignoring the applicant’s genuine financial needs and the respondent’s capacity to pay. In light of the facts and circumstances, the maintenance amount awarded deserves to be enhanced in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant No. 1 and the respondent solemnized their marriage in the year 2003 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and two daughters were born out of their wedlock. Subsequently, the applicant alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the respondent, particularly after the birth of the second daughter. 4 Although certain allegations were made and a compromise was attempted, the dispute persisted, and the respondent also initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thereafter, the applicant, claiming to have no independent source of income, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of ₹17,000/- per month, asserting that the respondent earns from his kirana shop and agricultural land. The respondent denied all allegations and contested the claim. After considering the submissions of both parties and evaluating the evidence on record, the learned Family Court rightly exercised its judicial discretion by partly allowing the maintenance application. The Court, after a fair and balanced assessment of the facts, by order dated 17.12.2019, awarding ₹3,000 per month in favour of applicant no.2 (the minor daughter), and denied maintenance to applicant no.1, which reflects a just and equitable determination in accordance with law. 7. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul dewangan