1 2025:CGHC:40135 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1253 of 2023 1. Smt. Kiran Joshi W/o Deendayal Joshi Aged About 33 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Kapisda, Tehsil And P.S. Bamnidih, Dist. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2. Ku. Lovely Joshi D/o Deendayal Joshi Aged About 8 Years Through Mother Smt. Kiran Joshi, W/o Deendayal Joshi, R/o Village Kapisda, Tehsil And P.S. Bamnidih, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Deendayal Joshi S/o Shivcharan Aged About 38 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Kapisda, Post Podi Shankar, Tehsil And P.S. Bamnidih, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants as well as Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been 9led by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.12 10:59:49 +0530 2 impugned judgment dated 26.09.2023, passed by Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir-Champa, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 373/2022, may kindly be set-aside and the application +led by the applicants may kindly be allowed and the applicants may kindly be granted maintenance, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicants 9led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month for applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month for applicant No. 2. The marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent took place on 07.05.2009 according to the rituals and customs of the society at Village Ucchibiti. From the said marriage, one male child, Piyush, was born on 02.03.2010, and a female child, Lovely (Applicant No. 2), was born on 23.04.2013. It has been alleged that from the very beginning of the marriage, the respondent and his family members used to ill-treat the applicant and harass her for not bringing suAcient dowry. The respondent, his mother, and other family members demanded a motorcycle and Rs. 5 lakhs from applicant No. 1. It is further alleged that the respondent physically assaulted applicant No. 1 on several occasions. In 2016, when applicant No. 1 was expecting a third child, her mother-in-law and the respondent allegedly administered pills to her for the purpose of abortion so that no female child would be born, due to which her health deteriorated. As her health worsened, the respondent left applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2 at her mother’s house, and since then they have been living separately. The son, Piyush, has been living with the respondent from the beginning. 3 4. Upon persuasion, applicant No. 1 along with applicant No. 2 went to the house of the respondent; however, within a day or two, the respondent again started ill-treating and assaulting applicant No. 1. Such incidents occurred multiple times, compelling applicant No. 1 to live separately with her daughter. Since 2016, applicants No. 1 and 2 have been residing at the house of applicant No. 1’s mother. 5. In the year 2020, applicants No. 1 and 2 9led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month for applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month for applicant No. 2. 6. The respondent 9led a reply to the said application denying the averments made by the applicants. It was stated by the respondent that applicant No. 1 had left the matrimonial home of her own accord, and although the respondent tried to reconcile with her, she refused to return and reside with him. 7. The learned Court recorded the statements of the parties and examined the witnesses, including applicant No. 1 and the respondent. 8. Vide impugned judgment dated 26.09.2023, the learned Court partially allowed the application 9led by the applicants, holding that applicant No. 1 was not entitled to any maintenance as she was living separately without suAcient cause, and that applicant No. 2 was entitled to maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month from the date of 9ling of the application. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the maintenance amount awarded is 4 not suAcient for the applicants to lead a normal life. The learned Family Court erroneously held that applicant No. 1 is living separately without any suAcient cause. Learned Family Court has erroneously held that applicant No. 1, without any reasonable cause, is living separately from the respondent. She submits that learned Family Court has erroneously held that since no report was lodged by applicant No. 1, it would mean that she is living separately without any reasonable cause; whereas applicant No. 1 has speci9cally stated that she was hopeful things would improve and did not wish to hurt her husband or his family members, and therefore, had not lodged any complaint. Furthermore, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that applicant No. 1 belongs to a rural background, has studied only up to Class 9, and therefore lacks adequate legal awareness. She also submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that there are allegations of harassment by the family members of the respondent, which made it diAcult for the applicant to reside in her matrimonial home. There is a clear and blatant violation of the well-settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. She further submits that learned Family Court has granted a meagre amount of maintenance to applicant No. 2. Applicant No. 1 is unemployed, and it is very diAcult for her to maintain her child. She further submits that learned Family Court ought to have acknowledged the fact that the respondent is the earning member, and a proper balance ought to have been struck while granting the maintenance amount to the applicants herein. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants. 5 11. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 12. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 9led by the applicants. The Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,500 to applicant No. 2. However, the application for grant of maintenance to applicant No. 1 was rejected by the Family Court, observing that she is living separately from the respondent without any reasonable cause. The Court considered the income, social, and economic status of both parties and the current price index, and the award cannot be said to be on the lower side. 13. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 9nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in9rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek