1 2025:CGHC:48512 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1117 of 2025 A. Santosh S/o Late Shri Chandrashekhar Rao Aged About 39 Years R/o C 802 Royal City Borsi, Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. A Rajni W/o A. Santosh Aged About 38 Years R/o Flat No. 404, Block A, Phase -1, Anand Vihar, Borsi and District- Durg (C.G.) 2. A. Ashna D/o A. Santosh, Through Legal Guardian Mother, Aged About 11 Years R/o Flat No. 404, Block A, Phase 1, Anand Vihar, Borsi and District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case. No.126/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent No.2/daughter filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 25,000/- per month to minor daughter and PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.23 14:51:37 +0530 2 rejected the application with respect to respondent No.1/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the revisionist/applicant is a government servant working as Supervisor of Audit in the Office of the Accountant General, Raipur, and is also an international Table Tennis player, representing India in various international competitions. He is a recipient of the Pankaj Vikram Award for excellence in sports. The marriage between the revisionist and the respondent No.1 was solemnized on 05.05.2011 according to Hindu rites and customs. From the said wedlock, a daughter, A. Ashna (also known as Manyata), was born on 14.03.2014, and is currently 11 years old. Due to matrimonial disputes, respondent No.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 15.12.2018, without any justifiable cause, taking along household items, the revisionist’s laptop, hard drive, and official documents. On 21.01.2019, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking Rs.50,000/- per month as maintenance for herself and the minor daughter. She claimed the revisionist earned Rs. 1,00,000/- per month, while falsely asserting that she was merely a contractual employee earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. The revisionist was compelled to approach this High Court in CRMP 919/2025, seeking a direction for the respondent No. 1 to produce her salary slips and property details, which were eventually submitted only after Court intervention. 3. The revisionist/applicant, in his reply, denied the inflated income figures attributed to him and highlighted the respondent’s misrepresentation of her income and employment status. The 3 learned Family Court, vide judgment dated 27.06.2025, awarded Rs. 25,000 per month as maintenance solely for the minor daughter. The Court held that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to maintenance, noting that the revisionist’s gross salary (May 2024) Rs. 95,620/-, respondent’s gross salary (March 2025)- Rs. 69,080 (Net - Rs. 63,584), further the learned trial Court observed that the revisionist, being an international player, has a higher standard of living. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 admitted gross salary exceeds Rs. 69,000/-, She owns assets worth approximately Rs. 95,00,000 (admitted in cross-examination), the claimed monthly expense of the daughter is Rs. 15,000, whereas Rs. 25,000 has been granted exclusively for her maintenance. The revisionist/applicant is ready and willing to provide a reasonable maintenance amount of Rs. 7,500 per month, which is proportionate to his actual financial capacity and adequately meets the genuine needs of the minor child, especially considering respondent No. 1’s substantial income. This amount also constitutes half of the claimed monthly expenses of the minor daughter, which are stated to be Rs. 15,000/-. Since both parents are government employees, they are equally capable of contributing proportionately towards the child's upbringing. The impugned order is thus arbitrary, excessive, and contrary to the material on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 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, and considering the conditions of both the parties, 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 Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti