1 2025:CGHC:40172 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 992 of 2022 1 - Smt. Reeta W/o Motilal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Satpata P.S. Bishrampur, Tahsil Latori, District Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Samar S/o Motilal Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Reeta W/o Motilal, R/o Village Satpata P.S. Bishrampur, Tahsil Latori, District Surajpur (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus Motilal S/o Kalicharan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Satpata, P.S. Bishrampur, Tahsil Latori, District Surajpur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRR No. 616 of 2022 Motilal S/o Kalicharan Aged About 35 Years Caste Harijan Occupation Contractor And Mason R/o Village Satpata, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Latori, District Surajpur (C.G.) ---Applicant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Reeta W/o Motilal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Satpata, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Latori, District Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Samar S/o Motilal Aged About 1 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Reeta W/o Motilal. R/o Village Satpata, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Latori, District Surajpur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 For Applicant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate in CRR No.992 / 2022 And For Applicant : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate in CRR No.616 / 2022 For Non-applicant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate in CRR No.616/2022 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11/08/2025 1. Heard Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the wife, Reeta and son, Samar in CRR No.992 of 2022. Also heard Mr. Prashant Sahu, learned counsel for the husband, Motilal in CRR No.616 of 2022 on I.A. No.01/2022, which is an application for condonation of delay of 36 days in filing the criminal revision bearing CRR No.992 of 2022. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2022 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revisions are heard finally. 3. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been +led against the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order. 4. In the present case, an application for maintenance was +led on behalf of the wife, Smt. Reeta and son, Samar. The learned Family Court, Surajpur, District - Surajpur vide order dated 12.04.2022, granted a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- to the son, 3 Samar. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Reeta and son, Samar, +led Criminal Revision No. 992/2022, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Motilal, +led Criminal Revision No. 616/2022, asserting that the impugned order of Family Court is liable to be set- aside. 5. Prosecution story in brief is that the marriage of wife, Reeta with the husband, Motilal was solemnized in 2018 through a “Bandhwa” marriage ceremony. From their marital relationship, son, Samar was born. Prior to this marriage, wife had been married to one Sanjay, from whom she was legally separated. The husband had also previously been married to one Manti Devi, from whom he was legally separated. In relation to their Bandhwa marriage, wife and the husband executed a marital agreement on 04.11.2019. One year later, the husband began demanding money for the purchase of a concrete mixer machine for his contracting and masonry business and started harassing and assaulting the wife. The father of wife purchased a mixer machine worth Rs.1,50,000/- and gave it to the husband. After keeping her well for a short period, the husband again demanded a TV, almirah, fan, cooler, and the registration of 10 decimals of land in his name, and told her that he would only keep her if these demands were met. 4 6. The father of wife agreed to ful+ll these demands and stated that the land would be registered if his daughter was treated well. In the meantime, wife became pregnant. However, the husband and his sister continued to harass her, prompting her to lodge a police report. The husband attempted to kill the wife by giving her electric shocks and strangling her with a dupatta, but she endured all the cruelty. About a month ago, the husband snatched her child and expelled her from the house, after she complained to the police, the child was restored to her. Wife is now residing at her parental home with the child. The husband has kept a woman named Manti as his wife and does not provide maintenance to wife and son. The husband works as a contractor and mason, earning Rs.50,000/- per month, and also owns 10 acres of agricultural land, generating an annual income of Rs.5,00,000/-. Wife has requested that she be awarded Rs.10,000/- per month for herself and Rs.5,000/- per month for her son. Thereafter, the husband +led his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the wife. Hence, the revision. 7. Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel appearing for wife Smt. Reeta and son, Samar submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to law and liable to be modi+ed or set-aside in accordance with the evidence, inasmuch as the maintenance awarded to son is only Rs.2,000/- per month, which, considering the present in>ation index, is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. The learned Court below failed to appreciate that son is of tender age and requires numerous essential items and articles for proper upbringing, and has every right to live with all necessary facilities 5 and comforts. The Court also failed to take into account that the husband has multiple sources of income and earns a substantial amount, yet only a meager sum has been awarded, which is insu?cient to meet the needs as per the de+nition of “maintenance” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 8. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Sahu, learned counsel appearing for husband, Motilal submits that the impugned order dated 12.04.2022 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set-aside, inasmuch as the learned Family Court erred in granting interim maintenance to son without their producing any evidence to establish that Samar is the son of Motilal. The learned Court failed to appreciate that, in his reply, the husband speci+cally denied the paternity of the said child. Further, the husband is engaged in daily labour, earning merely Rs.200/- per day, and is already maintaining his wife, children, and parents. In view of his meagre income, the maintenance amount awarded is excessive and disproportionate, and thus unsustainable. It is a settled principle of law that the bene+ts under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be claimed as a matter of right; therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by wife, Reeta and son, Samar and directed husband, Motilal to 6 pay Rs.2,500/- per month to son only towards maintenance observing that, son, Samar is indeed the biological son of the Motilal, even though wife, Reeta could not prove that she is Motilal’s legally wedded wife due to the absence of valid divorce from their respective previous marriages. Since under Section 125(1)(b) CrPC, a minor whether legitimate or illegitimate unable to maintain themselves is entitled to maintenance from the father, therefore, the Family Court concluded that son, Samar is entitled to receive maintenance from father, Motilal as aforementioned. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revisions and +nding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the son, I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. 13. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the certified copy of the order as well as the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil