1 2025:CGHC:29175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 140 of 2020 1 - Smt. Tomeshwari Sinha And Another W/o Mahesh Sinha Aged About 23 Years R/o Kanharpuri, Tahsil Kurud, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Nutan Sinha D/o Shri Mahesh Sinha Aged About 2 Years ( Minor ), Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Tomeshwari Sinha W/o Mahesh Sinha, R/o Kanharpuri, Tahsil Kurud, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Mahesh Sinha S/o Rikhiram Sinha, Aged About 28 Years Occupation - Nagar Sainik, R/o Pahanda ( Borsi ), Police Station Magarlod, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel the applicants. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to modify the impugned order 04.12.2019 (ΑΝΝEXURE A-1) passed by the learned Family Court, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.), in M.J.C. Case No. 19/2019, and enhance the amount of monthly maintenance suitably of applicant no. 2 and allow the application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant no. 1, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that in the present case, the applicant No. 1 solemnized her marriage with the respondent on 01.05.2013 as per Hindu customs and rituals, and two daughters Ku. Janhvi and Ku. Nutan Sinha were born out of their wedlock. While Ku. Janhvi resides with the respondent, Ku. Nutan resides with applicant No. 1. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking a maintenance amount of ₹10,000/- per month, alleging that applicant No. 1 was subjected to cruelty and dowry-related harassment by the respondent, leading to her expulsion from the matrimonial home. It was further submitted that she has no independent source of income, whereas the respondent is employed as a Nagar Sainik, earning approximately ₹20,000/- per month and owning 5 acres of agricultural land. The respondent denied the allegations. However, the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the material available on record, rejected the claim of applicant No. 1 and partly allowed the claim of applicant No. 2 by awarding her ₹2,500/- per month as maintenance vide order dated 04.12.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred this revision, as the impugned order is illegal, 3 erroneous, and contrary to law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to both law and the facts on record. The Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and materials available, and arbitrarily dismissed the application of applicant No. 1 while partly allowing the claim of applicant No. 2. Such a decision is not only inconsistent with the established principles of law but also reflects non-application of judicial mind to the material placed on record. The marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent was duly proved, and therefore, she is legally entitled to claim maintenance. The rejection of her application despite clear evidence of matrimonial relationship and absence of independent income is unjustified. The learned Court erred in its assessment of the respondent’s financial capacity and overlooked the economic hardship faced by applicant No. 1. Hence, the order is liable to be modified. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rightly passed the order dated 04.12.2019 after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the evidence brought on record by both parties. It is an undisputed fact that applicant No. 1 solemnized her marriage with the respondent on 01.05.2013 and two daughters were born out of 4 the wedlock, of whom one resides with the applicant and the other with the respondent. The Court, after appreciating the pleadings and material evidence, found that the applicant No. 2, being a minor and dependent, was entitled to maintenance, and accordingly awarded a reasonable amount of ₹2,500/- per month for her sustenance. As regards applicant No. 1, the Court correctly observed the lack of sufficient evidence to establish the allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment and the justification for separate living. Therefore, the rejection of her claim was based on sound legal reasoning and proper judicial application of mind. 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul dewangan