1 2025:CGHC:41502 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1361 of 2024 1 - Smt. Dupinder Kaur W/o Shri Yadvinder Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o Bangalipara Gali No. 06, Dr. Chauhan Gali, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Harsirat Kaur D/o Shri Yadvinder Singh Aged About 13 Years (Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Dupinder Kaur, W/o Shri Yadvinder Singh). --- R/o Bangalipara Gali No. 06, Dr. Chauhan Gali, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Yadvinder Singh S/o Late Harbansh Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o 25- A, Kot Karnali Singh, Sultan Wind Road, Amritsar (Punjab). ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, 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: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and modifying the impugned order dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Family Court, Bilaspur in Misc. Criminal Case No.70/2022, enhance the amount of maintenance suitably, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 28.02.2009 at Amritsar (Punjab) as per Sikh rites, and from the wedlock applicant No.2, a minor daughter, was born on 10.12.2010 who is presently residing with applicant No.1. It was averred that the respondent subjected applicant No.1 to cruelty in connection with dowry demands and physical assault, due to which she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and reside with her parents. The respondent failed to provide any maintenance, compelling the applicants to depend upon the 73-year-old father of applicant No.1. It was further stated that applicant No.1 has no independent income, while the respondent earns about Rs.40,000/- per month from his shop, Rs.60,000/- as rent from his house property at Patiala, and also earns commission as an agent. The applicants, therefore, prayed for grant of Rs.67,500/- per month as maintenance along with Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. The respondent remained absent despite notice and was proceeded ex parte on 20.02.2024. The learned Family Court, after framing issues and considering the pleadings, by order dated 28.10.2024 partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month each to the applicants from the date of order only. Hence, this revision. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, while determining the quantum of maintenance, has failed to appreciate the relevant aspects of the case in their true perspective, inasmuch as the applicants have no independent source of income and applicant No.2 is a school-going child, thereby rendering the amount of Rs.1,000/- per month awarded to each applicant wholly meager and insufficient to meet even their basic needs. The Family Court further erred in not considering that the respondent is possessed of sufficient means and earning capacity from multiple sources, and is fully capable of maintaining the applicants in a proper manner, commensurate with his financial status, the prevailing cost of living, and present-day standard of life. The learned Family Court has also committed an error in granting maintenance only from the date of the order instead of from the date of application, contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Furthermore, the respondent/ husband, despite due service of notice, remained absent throughout the proceedings and was proceeded ex parte, which aspect too ought to have been taken into account while granting adequate relief. 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 due consideration of the pleadings and material available on record, has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and exercised its discretion judiciously while awarding 4 maintenance. The Court, after framing issues and evaluating the evidence, correctly assessed the financial condition of the parties and the requirement of the applicants, and thereafter awarded maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month each to the applicants from the date of order. The Family Court has taken a balanced view by ensuring that the basic sustenance of the applicants is secured, while also keeping in mind the capacity and circumstances of the respondent. The impugned order dated 28.10.2024 is thus well- reasoned, just and proper. 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 be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan