1 2025:CGHC:48354 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1163 of 2025 1 - Smt. Amita Singh W/o Anurag Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o In Front Of Jatiay Talab Om Nagar, Jarhabhatha Ward No. 21 Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Ahaan Singh S/o Anurag Singh Aged About 7 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Amita Singh) R/o In Front Of Jatiay Talab Om Nagar, Jarhabhatha Ward No. 21 Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Amayra Singh D/o Anurag Singh Aged About 2 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Amita Singh) R/o In Front Of Jatiay Talab Om Nagar, Jarhabhatha Ward No. 21 Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Anurag Singh S/o Late L.S.P. Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Singh Brothers Residency Mangla Chowk Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19 /09/2025 1. Heard Dr. Arpit Lall, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 560 days in filing the instant criminal revision. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 01.12.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.480/2021, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No.2 and Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No.3, towards maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant married the respondent on 03.01.2014 at Bhatapara Vishrampur Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), and alleges that after the marriage he harassed her for divorce, demanded a car, frequently came home intoxicated, forced sexual relations, maintained illicit relationships with other women, and, along with his mother, abused and beat her; she further states that on 22.11.2021 he assaulted her when she refused to give him a divorce and often allowed his friends to misbehave with her. Working as a nurse and having custody of their two minor children, she sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The respondent denies the allegations, claims he earns only Rs.5,000/- per month from a private job, asserts that she left the home voluntarily, and alleges she shared objectionable photos and threatened false charges; he also filed an unsuccessful 3 application under Section 9 of the Family Court Act, 1984 for restitution of conjugal rights. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, in MJC Criminal No.480/2021 held that the applicant is self-sufficient and not entitled to spousal maintenance, but ordered the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- per month each to the two children (Rs.10,000/- total). Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur is illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence, as it wrongly denied her maintenance solely because she earns about Rs.8,000/- per month, which is inadequate to support herself and two school-going children whose annual tuition alone is Rs.41,500/- each, apart from other expenses. The respondent is a well-off journalist and businessman with ample means but has neglected his duty to maintain them. The Family court misappreciated the facts and law, so the order deserves to be set aside and the total maintenance enhanced to about Rs.50,000/- per month with spousal maintenance awarded to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed 4 by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No.2 and Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No.3, towards maintenance observing that though respondent has sufficient means, but applicant No. 1 earns about Rs.20,000/- per month and is capable of maintaining herself, so her claim for maintenance was rejected. However, it found that the two minor children, Ahaan Singh and Amayra Singh, cannot maintain themselves and that respondent, as their father, is obligated and financially able to support them. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that applicant No.2 and 3 are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 8. Considering the submissions 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal