1 2025:CGHC:41499 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1389 of 2024 1 - Smt. Sohadra Bai W/o Suresh Kumar Netam Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Matiya, Tehsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Manbai W/o Late Thanwar Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Matiya, Tehsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Suresh Kumar Netam S/o Late Thanwar Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Posted As Clerk Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli , Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “1. The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to enhance the maintenance for Rs 20,000 for applicant no 1 and 20000 Rs for the applicant no 2. 2. Any other relief this Hon'ble High Court deems fit.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court claiming maintenance from the non-applicant, stating that applicant no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, their marriage having been solemnized in the year 2001 at village Khalari according to Hindu rites and rituals, and from the said wedlock a son, namely Rahul, was born who is residing with applicant no.1, further, applicant no.2 is the mother of the non-applicant. It was alleged that despite being employed as a Clerk in Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli, earning about Rs.80,000/- per month, and also owning 15.40 acres of agricultural land yielding around Rs.12 lakhs annually, the non- applicant has failed to provide any maintenance or basic necessities to the applicants. The non-applicant, in reply, denied the allegations, contending that applicant no.2 had deserted him when he was a child of 3-4 years and that applicant no.1 had been willfully residing separately since 2022, further alleging that she had illicit relations with another person. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence of both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each to the applicants. Being aggrieved thereby, the present revision has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that that the impugned order dated 27/09/2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and liable to be set aside, as the court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the applicants are helpless ladies having no independent source of income, and 3 applicant no.1 is also burdened with the responsibility of maintaining a school-going child. The learned court further failed to consider that the non-applicant is a healthy person, employed as a Clerk in a government office drawing a salary of Rs.80,000/- per month, apart from owning 15.40 acres of agricultural land from which he earns around Rs.12 lakhs annually, and thus being financially sound and belonging to a well-reputed family, he is fully capable of maintaining the applicants. However, the trial court awarded only Rs.3,000/- per month to each applicant, which is meager and wholly insufficient to meet even their basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter. The court also overlooked the fact that applicant no.2, being the aged mother of the non-applicant and a widow, is legally entitled to be maintained by her son, and further failed to consider that applicant no.1 is already facing immense mental distress due to false allegations leveled against her. The order, therefore, suffers from illegality, arbitrariness, and non- application of mind, and the applicants are entitled to enhanced maintenance in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon consideration of the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by both parties, vide order dated 27/09/2024, rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/– each to the 4 applicants. The Court found that while applicant no.1 is the legally wedded wife and applicant no.2 is the mother of the non-applicant, the allegations regarding cruelty, desertion, and alleged illicit relations required cautious scrutiny. Having regard to the evidence on record, the income and liabilities of the non-applicant, and the overall circumstances, the learned Family Court exercised its discretion judiciously in fixing the maintenance at Rs.3,000/– per month to each applicant, which cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unjustified. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan