1 CRR No.1308 of 2023 2025:CGHC:10902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1308 of 2023 1 - Prahalad Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma Aged About 38 Years R/o Qt. No. 2221, Behind Sitraram Dairy, Near Railway Tin Puliya, New Kanchanpur, Aadhartal, Jabalpur, Tahsil And District- Jabalpur, M.P. At Present R/o- Prahalad Kumar Shama, Morden Railway Coach Factory, Raibareli, Tahsil And District- Raibareli, Pin Code- 229120 U.P. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Madhu Versha Sharma W/o Prahalad Kumar Sharma Aged About 31 Years R/o Raibareli U.P., At Present R/o Bhanpuri, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Amahira Kumar Sharma S/o Prahalad Kumar Sharma Aged About 3 Years Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Madhu Versha Sharma, R/o Bhanpuri, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopal Singh Baghel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 05.03.2025 2 CRR No.1308 of 2023 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the Court of Principle Judge Family Court Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Criminal M.C.C. No. 343 of 2018. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner and respondent No. 1, Madhuversha Sharma, were solemnized their marriage on February 20, 2017, and a child was born out their wed-lock. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, claiming maintenance of Rs.30,000, alleging cruel treatment and harassment by the petitioner. The petitioner denied these allegations, stating that respondent No. 1 has a sufficient income to support herself and their child. The Family Court partly allowed the application, granting respondent No.1 Rs.22,000 and respondent No.2 Rs.8,000 as maintenance. The petitioner challenges this order, claiming it is illegal and erroneous. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is contrary 3 CRR No.1308 of 2023 to the facts and circumstances of the case. He stated that the monthly income of the applicant is about Rs.90,000/-. The respondent no.1 without any sufficient reason left the house of the applicant and is herself living separately. He further submits that the respondent No.1 had herself admitted that after separation the petitioner is sending money to her and their child and also admitted that in the year of 2020/21 she was working in Axix Bank and at present she is working/training at Hydrabad in a constructions company where she is getting around Rs.17,000/- per month. He would further submits that the decree of divorce was drawn by the learned judge in the year of 2018 and the same executed in the year of 2023. Hence he pleads to allow this criminal revision and set aside the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 or reduce the maintenance allowed by the concerned Family Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and decree of divorce passed by the learned Family Court to be just and proper. He submits that when the impugned order was passed, the respondent No.1 was working therein but at present she has no 4 CRR No.1308 of 2023 source of income and living with her father. He further submits that the bank statement of respondent No.1 is annexed vide Annexure R/2 wherein it is apparent that she is not working in any company/bank/firm to fullfil her basic needs and proper care of her child, therefore, the present revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused impugned order passed by the concerned Family courts with utmost circumspection. 6. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that present applicant is the husband of the respondent no.1 and they both have a child. It is also clear that the respondents no.1 is living separately. And, it is also an admitted position that Kapil Muni Sharma (AW-02) father of Respondent No.1 has been examined before the family Court and in para 4 of his cross-examination he has admitted that the year of 2020-21 she was working in Axix Bank and the time of filing of the application she is working/training at Hyderabad in a constructions company where she is getting around Rs.17,000/- per month. Therefore, she 5 CRR No.1308 of 2023 was able to maintain herself. So far as Respondent No.2, who is minor child, is concerned, Respondent No.2 is entitled to get maintenance from his father i.e. present appellant. 7. So far as the question of her unemployment is concerned, at the time of passing of the judgment by the family court the respondent No.1 is earning, the family Court has ignored the fact that Respondent No.1/wife is able to maintain herself, therefore, Respondent No.1 is not entitled to get maintenance amount from her husband (Revisioner). 8. So far as Respondent No.2 is concerned, who is child of revisioner and respondent-wife aged about three years, is entitled to get maintenance amount from his father. 9. In view of the above submissions and further taking into consideration the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court allow the instant revision in-part, set aside the order of maintenance of respondent no.1/wife of the revisioner, while the maintenance awarded to the minor child, respondent No. 2, as granted by the Family Court, is upheld. 6 CRR No.1308 of 2023 10. Accordingly, with these observations and directions this petition is allowed. 11. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA