1 2025:CGHC:54179 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1345 of 2025 Minor Himanshu Shekhar S/o Vibhishan Sah Aged About 13 Years Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Soudamini Gupta, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Police Station And Tahsil- Pusour, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Vibhishan Saha S/o Dhanurjay Saha Aged About 48 Years Occupation- Lecturer, R/o Government Higher Secondary School, Sankra, Tahsil- Sariya, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Dhaniram Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06 /11/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.F- 75/2023, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and 2 directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision according to the applicant are that it is an admitted fact that the applicant was born on 08.08.2010 from the marriage of his mother Soudamini Gupta and the respondent Vibhishan Saha, which was solemnized on 11.06.2009 and later dissolved. The applicant lives with his mother and is entirely dependent on her for his upbringing, whereas the respondent, though employed as a Lecturer earning about Rs. 60,000/- per month, has not provided any maintenance or financial support. The applicant, a student of Class VII at Little Angel Public School, Pusaur, incurs annual school fees of Rs. 20,000/-, book expenses of Rs. 10,000/- and monthly expenses of about Rs. 10,000/-. An application under Section 127 CrPC was filed seeking Rs. 30,000/- per month towards maintenance on the ground that the respondent had abandoned the applicant since 2016, harassed both mother and child earlier, and has since remarried. The applicant’s mother, in her sworn statement, reiterated these facts and stated that she alone bears all expenses. The respondent, in reply, denied the allegations and contended that both parents are Lecturers and equally responsible, asserting that the mother does not allow him to meet the child and herself earns around Rs. 60,000/- per month. After considering the material, the learned Family Court, by order dated 23.09.2025, granted only Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance to 3 the applicant, despite considering the respondent’s substantial income. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in awarding only Rs. 3,000/- per month, which is wholly inadequate considering the non-applicant’s admitted salary of about Rs. 60,000/- and the settled principle under Section 125 CrPC that maintenance must reflect the status and means of the father. The Court failed to appreciate the applicant’s proved expenses annual school fees of Rs. 20,000/-, books of Rs. 10,000/- and monthly living expenses of Rs. 10,000/- and ignored the increase in costs and changed circumstances warranting enhancement under Section 127 CrPC. The father has not contributed any amount since 2016, leaving the mother to bear all financial responsibilities, and his remarriage or other dependents cannot dilute his statutory obligation towards the child. The Family Court also overlooked the guardian’s sworn testimony regarding abandonment and non-support. Judicial precedents, including Rajnesh v. Neha, Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, and Kirtikant Vadodaria, mandate that a minor child is entitled to maintenance proportionate to the father’s income, and meager awards must be enhanced. Hence, the impugned order suffers from illegality and improper exercise of discretion, justifying revision. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant, towards maintenance observing the undisputed evidence regarding the applicant’s dependency on his mother, the respondent’s income of about Rs. 56,816/- per month, the mother’s earnings, the educational expenses of the child, and the father’s continued legal and moral obligation despite divorce and remarriage, held that the minor is entitled to maintenance. Accordingly, the Family Court granted monthly maintenance to the applicant as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 6. Considering the submissions 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil