1 2025:CGHC:54414 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1100 of 2025 1. Neelam Purenve W/o Suresh Purenve Aged About 34 Years R/o Gulab Nagar, Gondwara Marg Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Rishabh Purenve S/o Suresh Purenve Aged About 12 Years Through Natural Guardian Applicant No. 1 Neelam Purenve, R/o Gulab Nagar, Gondwara Marg Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Nupur Purenve D/o Suresh Purenve Aged About 8 Years Through Natural Guardian Applicant No. 1 Neelam Purenve, R/o Gulab Nagar, Gondwara Marg Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Suresh Purenve S/o Harprasad Purenve Aged About 42 Years R/o 4th Batallion, Mana Camp, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice [ Order on Board 07.11.2025 1. The applicants have 4led this criminal revision against the order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 345/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants and enhanced maintenance of applicant No. 2 from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs.3,500/- and of applicant No. 3 from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/-, but declined to enhance the maintenance amount for applicant No. 1 on the ground that ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.11 13:15:34 +0530 2 she was already receiving Rs.4,000/- in the domestic-violence proceedings. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No. 1 was married to the non-applicant/husband on 13.06.2006 as per Hindu rites and customs. After about 4fteen days of marriage, the non- applicant went to Kanker for his employment, while the applicant continued to reside with her in-laws. In September 2006, she joined her husband at Kanker, where they lived together, and from their lawful wedlock two children were born, a son-Rishabh Purenve, and a daughter- Nupur Purenve. However, soon thereafter, the behaviour of the non-applicant/husband changed and he began to harbour unfounded suspicions about the character of the applicant, subjected her to cruelty and harassment, and, on several occasions, both he and his father assaulted her. Owing to such conduct, the applicant No. 1 4led a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.). During the pendency of the said proceedings, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 09.10.2018, directed that the applicant and the non-applicant shall reside together, failing which the non-applicant would be liable to pay Rs.4,000/- per month towards her maintenance if he refused to keep her at her matrimonial home. Despite the said order, the cruelty continued unabated. The non-applicant and his family members frequently visited the house, and the non-applicant would assault the applicant on trivial issues, including once when his friends complained about the food. Even during her pregnancy, he compelled her to undergo an abortion, and upon her refusal and the doctor’s denial, he again subjected her to physical and mental torture. Though the Superintendent of Police, Kanker, advised the non-applicant to behave properly, the ill-treatment 3 persisted. Ultimately, on 25.07.2015, the applicant and her children were driven out of the matrimonial home, compelling them to take shelter at her parental house. The applicant repeatedly attempted to return, in compliance with the Court’s order dated 09.10.2018, but was turned away each time. 3. Thereafter, she 4led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), wherein, vide order dated 04.10.2019, she and her two minor children were granted interim maintenance of Rs. 6,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 3,000/- to applicant No. 1, Rs. 2,000/- to applicant No. 2 (Rishabh), and Rs.1,500/- to applicant No. 3 (Nupur). Subsequently, on an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. (Case No. 345/2023), the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance of applicant No. 2 from Rs.2,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- and of applicant No. 3 from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/-, but declined to enhance the amount for applicant No. 1 on the ground that she was already receiving Rs.4,000/- in the domestic-violence proceedings. However, that amount was irregularly paid, only when hearings were 4xed, and has not been paid for over three months. Moreover, the domestic-violence case itself was dismissed on 11.08.2025, rendering her without that support. 4. The applicant continues to express her willingness to reside with the non- applicant, but he has persistently refused to take her back. She now resides with her parents, solely responsible for the upbringing and education of their two children. During cross-examination, the non- applicant admitted that he is employed in Government service, earning approximately Rs.50,000/- per month, and that his father owns about 18 decimal of land. It also came on record that the non-applicant, during trial, transferred agricultural land previously standing in his own name to his brother Manoj Kumar s/o Harprasad, only to suppress his assets and 4 evade maintenance liability. It is further relevant that the non-applicant had earlier 4led a divorce petition, but withdrew the same after the Court directed him to pay Rs.2,000/- as traveling expenses to the applicant. These facts clearly demonstrate the respondent’s means and capacity, his deliberate neglect, and the continuous hardship suEered by the applicant and her children, necessitating the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court suEers from serious legal and factual in4rmities, as the amount of maintenance awarded is wholly inadequate to meet the genuine needs and basic expenses of the applicants. It is contended that the learned Family Court has awarded only a meagre sum as interim maintenance, which is not suFcient even for the subsistence of the applicant No. 1 and her two children. The situation has further worsened as the JMFC, Raipur, in the domestic violence proceedings, has rejected the applicant’s case, due to which the amount of Rs.4,000/- earlier being received by her towards house expenses has also been discontinued. The applicant No. 1, being a homemaker with no independent income, is solely responsible for the maintenance and upbringing of her two children. The applicant No. 2, her son, is studying in Class 9 at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.), and his monthly school fees amount to Rs.2,400/-, while the applicant No. 3, her daughter, is studying in Class 4 in the same institution, with a monthly fee of Rs.1,800/-. In addition, both children incur Rs.1,200/- each per month towards travel expenses from their residence to school. Thus, the total educational expenditure alone amounts to Rs.6,600/- per month, excluding other essential expenses such as books, stationery, and miscellaneous costs. 5 6. It is further submitted that the non-applicant is a Government Servant, working as a Head Constable in the Department of Home, 4th Battalion, C.A.F., Mana, Raipur (C.G.), drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs.61,289/-, and after statutory deductions, his net take-home salary amounts to Rs.50,989/-, as evident from the payslip for the month of May 2025. In addition, the non-applicant and his family possess 18 dismil of agricultural land and have also acquired certain immovable properties, which, in order to evade legal obligations, have been registered in the names of his father and brother, who are merely ostensible owners. Learned counsel submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that, in view of the respondent’s income, assets, and standard of living, the amount awarded as maintenance is grossly disproportionate and inadequate to ensure a life of dignity for the applicants. Considering the rising inGation, increased cost of education, and daily living expenses, the applicant and her children are unable to sustain themselves reasonably with the present amount. It is therefore prayed that the maintenance be suitably enhanced in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, so as to enable the applicants to live with dignity and continue the education of the children without hardship. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is just, proper, and based on due appreciation of evidence available on record. It is contended that the learned Court has rightly assessed the income, means, and liabilities of the respondent and has awarded a reasonable amount of maintenance keeping in view his 4nancial condition and existing responsibilities. Further, the applicant No. 1 has voluntarily chosen to reside separately without any justi4able cause and has been instigating litigation only to harass the respondent. The 6 allegations of cruelty and neglect are false, exaggerated, and unsupported by cogent evidence. The respondent has neither deserted the applicant nor failed in his duty to provide maintenance within his means. On the contrary, he has been regularly complying with the order of the learned Family Court and paying the maintenance amount as directed. The respondent has already been facing 4nancial strain due to continuous legal proceedings and household expenses, and any further enhancement would cause undue hardship to him. Therefore, it is submitted that the present revision petition 4led by the applicants is devoid of merit, and the order passed by the learned Family Court being fair and equitable, calls for no interference by this Hon’ble Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 9. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application 4led by the applicants under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. The Court enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- for applicant No. 2, and from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,000/- for applicant No. 3. However, the application seeking enhancement of maintenance on behalf of applicant No. 1 was rejected. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by both the parties, this Court 4nds that the learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order, has failed to properly appreciate the material evidence regarding the 4nancial capacity of the respondent and the genuine needs of the applicants. The respondent, being a Head Constable in the Department of Home, 4th Battalion, C.A.F., Mana, Raipur (C.G.), is earning a net monthly salary of around Rs.50,000/-, apart from possessing agricultural land and other properties in the name of his close family members. Hence, there is no doubt that the respondent is a person of suFcient 7 means to provide reasonable maintenance to his wife and children. The learned Family Court, while acknowledging these facts, has nonetheless awarded a meagre and inadequate amount, which is not commensurate with the present cost of living and the educational expenses of the applicants’ school-going children. 11. This Court further observes that the applicant No. 1 is a housewife with no independent income, and the two children are studying in Kendriya Vidyalaya, incurring regular educational and travelling expenses, as supported by the documents on record. The meagre maintenance awarded is insuFcient to meet even the basic requirements of the applicants, particularly in view of the rising inGation and increased educational costs. Therefore, the order of the learned Family Court, to the extent it restricts the maintenance amount, cannot be sustained in law. 12. In view of the above, the order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) is modi4ed to the extent that the maintenance amount payable to the applicant No. 1 is enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs. 5000/- and applicant No. 02 from Rs. 3500/- to Rs. 5000/-, and applicant No. 3 from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 5000/- per month, which shall be paid by the respondent as maintenance 01.12.2025 to the respective applicants, as observed above and the same amount shall be paid by him on 10th day of every month. 13. With the aforesaid observation, the instant criminal revision stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek