1 2025:CGHC:32646 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 95 of 2020 1. Smt. Rajkumari Sethiya W/o Jitendra Sethiya Aged About 27 Years Caste Sundi, R/o Village Bade Murma Tikrapara, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2. Hitesh Sethiya S/o Jitendra Sethiya Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Her Natural Guadian Mother Smt. Rajkumari Sethiya, Caste Sundi, R/o Village Bade Murma Tikrapara, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Jitendra Sethiya S/o Late Tularam Sethiya Aged About 40 Years Caste Sundi, R/o Village Satlawand Tahsil Bakawand District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the court ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.15 11:13:31 +0530 2 below for hearing arguments and be pleased to allow this revision and modified the order of maintenance passed by the learned Family Court, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of maintenance. It was submitted by the applicants that applicant No. 1 was married to the respondent in the year 2011 according to their customs. Thereafter, they resided peacefully at the respondent’s home, and after some time, applicant No. 1 became pregnant. Subsequently, the respondent started consuming alcohol and began beating her for insufficient dowry. Due to this, applicant No. 1 went to her parental home, where she gave birth to applicant No. 2. It was further submitted that after the birth of applicant No. 2, the respondent came to her parental home to visit his son and then returned. Thereafter, the respondent along with his family members came and took the applicants to his home. However, after three days, the respondent and his family members again committed cruelty upon applicant No. 1 for dowry demands. It was further submitted that applicant No. 1 has been residing with her son (applicant No. 2) at her parental home for the last many years and they are facing financial difficulties. The respondent owns 20 acres of agricultural land from which he earns an annual income of Rs. 15,00,000/- and owns a pickup vehicle through which he earns an income of Rs. 1,20,000/- per year. It was further contended that the respondent has refused to maintain them; hence, they filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance to the 3 applicants. 4. The respondent filed his reply denying the averments of the claim. He submitted that he never refused to maintain the applicants, but applicant No. 1 herself chose to live at her parental home and forced him to separate from his parents. She is residing at her parental home out of her own will. It was further submitted that applicant No. 1 earns Rs. 1,000/- to 1,200/- per month and is capable of maintaining herself. It was also submitted that the respondent is an agriculturist earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and that the parents of applicant No. 1 are capable and regularly help their daughter. 5. The learned Family Court, after hearing both the applicants and the respondent, dismissed the application of applicant No. 1 and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month towards maintenance to applicant No. 2. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in not appreciating the matter in its correct perspective. Learned Family Court further failed to consider that the documents produced by the respondent do not bear the signature of the applicant. He submits that the learned Family Court wrongly dismissed the application of applicant No. 1. The order passed by the learned Family Court is based on presumption. Learned Family Court, without considering the actual source of income of the respondent, has granted a very meagre amount of only Rs. 2,000/- per month towards maintenance to applicant No. 2. He further submits that the learned Family Court has erred in holding that applicant No. 1 resides at her parental home out of her own will. Learned Family Court ought 4 to have seen and held that the provision of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is for the upbringing of a woman and child who are not capable of earning or maintaining themselves. For the reasons mentioned above, amongst others, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be modified. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to the applicant No. 02, whereas the maintenance claimed by the applicant No. 01 was rejected, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 9. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek