1 2025:CGHC:54361 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1352 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sunita Tiwari W/o Ashok Tiwari Aged About 47 Years R/o Avimukta Nagar Near Durga Mandir Ward No. 1, Kawardha, P.S. And Tahsil Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Avi Tiwari S/o Ashok Tiwari Aged About 14 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Sunita Tiwari W/o Ashok Tiwari Aged 47 Year R/o Avimukta Nagar Near Durga Mandir Ward No. 1, Kawardha, P.S. And Tahsil Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Ashok Tiwari S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Tiwari Aged About 54 Years R/o Gram - Biptara Post Marka, P.S. And Tahsil Pipriya, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sumit Jhawar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.11.2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Family Court, Kabirdham, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Kawardha (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 103/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.3000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to applicant No.2. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No. 1, namely Smt. Sunita Tiwari, and the respondent are legally wedded husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 28.06.1998 at Village Gudsena, District Bemetara (C.G.), according to Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, four children were born i.e. three daughters and one son. After marriage, the applicants and the respondent resided together at Gram Biptara, Tehsil Kawardha, leading a normal matrimonial life. In the year 2013, for the educational advancement of their children, they shifted to Kachari Para, Kawardha, where they resided in a rented house. Later, in 2021, the respondent purchased a plot and constructed a residential house at Ayodhyadham, Kawardha, and the family thereafter began living in the said house. The applicant No. 1 has stated that she is a homemaker aged about 47 years, with no independent source of income, and has been wholly dependent upon the respondent for her sustenance and that of her children. 3. Thereafter, the applicant has further pleaded that her son (applicant No. 2) is a student of Class 8, whose annual educational expenses amount to around Rs.30,000, besides mess and other incidental expenses. Her elder daughter, Anjali, is 3 pursuing B.Tech (3rd Year), and another daughter, Himangi, is preparing for the NEET examination, each incurring approximately Rs.50,000 per month towards educational and living costs. The applicant has submitted that the respondent was earlier bearing all such household and educational expenses, however, in recent times, he has willfully neglected and refused to provide any financial support to the applicants. It has been further alleged that the respondent, after developing an illicit relationship with one Ms. Kavita Thakur, began to ill-treat and physically assault the applicant, ultimately deserting her and the children since January 2024. Presently, the entire burden of maintenance and educational expenses has fallen upon the elder daughter, Anshu, thereby causing severe financial and emotional hardship to the applicants and compelling the filing of the present proceedings seeking just and reasonable maintenance. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court are contrary to law, facts, and the evidence available on record. It is contended that the learned Court erred in awarding a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance of both applicants, despite clear and uncontroverted evidence of the respondent’s sufficient means and financial capacity. The respondent himself has admitted that he was earlier bearing all household and educational expenses of the applicants and their children, which establishes that he had a stable and substantial source of income 4 to maintain them in a reasonable standard of living. Hence, his present plea of financial incapacity is an afterthought, unsupported by any documentary proof. It is further submitted that the respondent’s own bank records show continuous deposits of large sums even after 2013, which fact has been completely overlooked by the learned Family Court. The respondent has deliberately concealed his true income and failed to produce complete income records, agricultural earnings, or bank statements; therefore, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against him. Despite observing that the respondent is a man of means, the learned Court has arbitrarily restricted the maintenance to Rs.5,000/- per month without appreciating the prevailing cost of living and the educational requirements of the applicants’ children, one pursuing B.Tech, another preparing for NEET, and the youngest son studying in Class 8 with annual expenses of about Rs.30,000/-. Learned counsel submits that the object of Section 144 of the BNSS (BNSS) is to prevent destitution and ensure that a wife and children are not left without proper means of sustenance, however, by granting a meagre and unrealistic sum, the learned Court has defeated the very spirit and purpose of the provision, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside or suitably modified by enhancing the maintenance amount in light of the respondent’s true financial capacity and the genuine needs of the applicants. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to applicant No.2 observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. Considering the submission 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal