1 2025:CGHC:8703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 235 of 2025 1 - Smt. Khileshwari Sahu W/o Horilal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Bhothidih, P.O. - Nipaniya, Tahsil - Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Present Address - Sanjay Colony Balodabazar, Tahsil And Police Station - Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Sunita Sahu D/o Horilal Sahu Aged About 9 Years Minors Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Khileshwari Sahu W/o Horilal Sahu, R/o Village - Bhothidih, P.O. - Nipaniya, Tahsil - Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Present Address - Sanjay Colony Balodabazar, Tahsil And Police Station - Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Ajay Sahu S/o Horilal Sahu Aged About 7 Years Minors Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Khileshwari Sahu W/o Horilal Sahu, R/o Village - Bhothidih, P.O. - Nipaniya, Tahsil - Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Present Address - Sanjay Colony Balodabazar, Tahsil And Police Station - Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Horilal Sahu S/o Late Lalaram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Bhothidih, P.O.- Nipaniya, Tahsil - Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya along with Mr. Shyamta Prasad Sannat, Advocate 2 For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19/02/2025 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 100/2024, whereby the Family Court has granted maintenance total amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month (Rs.1500/- per month for applicant no. 2 and Rs. 1500/- for applicant no. 3), hence this revision is being filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant no.1 and non- applicant solemnized marriage on 19.04.2014 according to Hindu rites and rituals and out of their wedlock, the applicant no. 2/ Ku. Sunita Sahu and appicant no. 2/ Ajay Sahu were born on 08.07.2015 and 27.04.2017 respectively. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance alleging inter-alia that after the marriage, mother-n-law of the applicant no. 1 used to taunt about little things and used to ask that nothing has been given as gift in the marriage. The gift given is of poor quality. The non-applicant used to abuse and assault the 3 applicant no. 1 in drunken condition. The non-applicant used to abuse and assault applicant no. 1 in drunken condition. The non- applicant and his mother used to trouble the non-applicant no. 1 about meals. The mother-in-law used to give the things by measuring and most often the applicant no. 1 had to sleep in empty stomach due to no meals and the non-applicant’s mother used to put pressure upon applicant no. 1 to bring ration commodity from her maternal house and she was not permitted to visit her maternal house. The applicant no. 1 was not permitted to her maternal house even in the wedding, birth ceremony, funeral etc. The non-applicant used to suspect on her character. 3. After considering the application and reply filed by both the parties and the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned family Court vide its order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure A-1) granted amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month (Rs. 1500/- each to applicant no. 2 and applicant no. 3), hence this revision is being filed for enhancement of maintenance amount. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that while granting amount of maintenance, the learned Family Court has not considered the income of non-applicant properly and granted less maintenance to the applicants. The learned Family Court is overlooked the fact that the two children (applicant No.2 & 3) are minor and both are studying in School and therefore, maintenance 4 of Rs.3,000/- each is very lower side, which is liable to be enhanced. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicants and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- per month (Rs. 1500/- to each applicant no. 2 and 3). 7. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that applicant No.1/wife has no high source of income, she is residing in her parental home with her minor children/applicants No.2 & 3 and she is struggling to support herself and the childrens, hence, the Family Court granted the maintenance to the applicant no. 2 and 3 under Section 125 of CrPC. As per the statement of applicant, the non-applicant (husband of applicant No.1 and father of applicants No.2 & 3) is a mason and having some agricultural land and is getting Rs. 800/- per day. However, the non-applicant has denied this fact. Therefore, considering facts of the case and looking to the price index which is prevailing in the society and hike in value of the commodities and nature of job of the respondent, it is directed that the respondent shall pay interim maintenance of Rs. 1800/- per month to applicant no. 2 and 5 applicant no. 3 instead of Rs.1500/- (total Rs.3600/- per month instead of Rs.3000/- per month). 8. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed and stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima