1 2025:CGHC:40143 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1164 of 2023 1 - Smt. Namrata Suchak W/o Satish Suchak Aged About 44 Years Occupation- Nothing. Residence Of Shri Jayanti Lal Raja, Aashirwad Bhawan, Near S.B.I. Colony, Aara Mill Road, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Kavya D/o Satish Suchak Aged About 12 Years (Child) Through Her Guardian/ Mother Smt. Namrata Suchak W/o Satish Suchak, Aged About 44 Years Residence Of Shri Jayanti Lal Raja, Aashirwad Bhawan, Near S.B.I. Colony, Aara Mill Road, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Kumari Hiral D/o Satish Suchak Aged About 9 Years (Child) Through Her Guardian/ Mother Smt. Namrata Suchak W/o Satish Suchak, Aged About 44 Years Residence Of Shri Jayanti Lal Raja, Aashirwad Bhawan, Near S.B.I. Colony, Aara Mill Road, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Satish Suchak S/o Late Dhirajlal Suchak Aged About 48 Years Occupation- Clothes Merchant, R/o Village Post- Rajoli, Tehsil- Shul, District- Chandrapur (Maharashtra) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Gopal Swaroop Gupta, Advocate. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rishabh Bisen, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Gopal Swaroop Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It Is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to set-aside the impugned Order Dated 24.08.2023 Passed By Vinita Warner, Principle Family Judge, Rajnandgaon, in MJC No. 71/2019 Smt. Namrata and 2 Others V. Satish which is (ANNEXURE A/1) and allow this Revision for Grant of maintenance a Sum of Rs 1,00,000 Rs to Appellant No. 1 to 3 equally. This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass Such order as it may deems >t under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant No. 1 and the Non- applicant were married on 21.05.2006 according to Hindu rites. From their marital relationship, applicant No. 2, Kavya, was born on 10.08.2007, and applicant No. 3, Hiral, was born on 20.05.2010. The applicants alleged that soon after the marriage, the non- applicant along with his parents and sister, started harassing applicant No. 1. During her pregnancies, she was denied nutritious food and was made to do all household chores. The Non-applicant would physically assault her over petty issues. The applicant No. 2 3 was born in Chandrapur. After her birth, both mother and child were denied food and were taunted for the birth of a girl. Due to this, applicant No. 1 moved to Rajnandgaon for three months for treatment of herself and the child, and later went to village Rajoli. When she became pregnant again, she was made to do all the household work and was threatened with dire consequences if she did not give birth to a boy. She again went to Rajnandgaon, where applicant No. 3, Hiral, was born in May 2010. After returning to Rajoli, the harassment and beatings increased. The Non-applicant allegedly engaged in inappropriate behaviour with the household maid, and when applicant No. 1 objected, she was beaten and labelled as mentally unstable. On one occasion, she allegedly found the Non-applicant behaving inappropriately with their daughter Hiral. When she protested, she was assaulted, after which she left with both daughters and went to Rajnandgaon. In June 2017, relatives and friends of the non-applicant persuaded her to return, assuring her that past behaviour would not be repeated. The applicants returned to Rajoli and stayed with the Non-applicant. However, after about 8–10 months, the non-applicant resumed assaulting and verbally abusing them and allegedly engaged in sexual relations with the maid. The applicants claim that the Non- applicant is a wealthy businessman, owning: an old large family house in Rajoli, a new wholesale and retail cloth shop near the bus stand by the railway crossing, with a residential unit on the Brst Coor, a large warehouse in Dongargaon near Rajoli, a residential Cat in Chandrapur, two plots in Sindewahi village, agricultural land near 4 Katol, Nagpur, Over 20 acres of farmland in Rajoli. It is claimed that the Non-applicant earns ₹1,00,000/- to ₹1,25,000/- per month from business and farming, has a car, and earns additional rental income from property. The applicant No. 1 seeks ₹40,000/- per month for her own maintenance, and ₹25,000/- each for applicants No. 2 and 3 for their maintenance and education. 4. The Non-applicant contends that applicant No. 1 is educated and, even before marriage, used to earn more than him. She allegedly desires a luxurious lifestyle, which is not possible in a small village. According to him, she wanted him to leave his elderly widowed mother, who is suEering from several ailments, and live with her separately. He claims that applicant No. 1 works as a teacher at Neeraj Public School, earning a good salary. She allegedly pressured him to shut down his shop, abandon the traditional family home, and move to Rajnandgaon. When he refused, she stopped doing household work, abused and assaulted his mother, and forced her to work. Due to this humiliation, the non-applicant’s father passed away on 02.03.2015. He further alleges that after the birth of the children, applicant No. 1 often stayed with her parents for 2–3 months and only occasionally returned when called. She would go to her parents’ home for every major festival (Holi, Diwali, Dussehra), depriving his mother of time with the grandchildren. After the birth of their second daughter in 2010, applicant No. 1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home and stayed with her parents, returning in 2011. A similar separation occurred between October 2015 and April 2017. To accommodate her, the Non-applicant 5 rented a house in Sindewahi, District Chandrapur, where they lived separately from his elderly mother from July 2015. However, she stayed there for only about 1.5 months and then left for Rajnandgaon with the children. The Non-applicant states he runs a small business and has no other source of income. 5. Learned Family Court concerned after due appreciation and the evidence available on record, passed the impugned order dated 24.08.2023, whereby partly allowed the application Bled by the applicants and it was directed the non-applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to the applicant No.1 and Rs. 1500/- per month to the applicant No.2 and Rs. 1000/- per month to the applicant No.3 towards maintenance (Total 4500/-). Being dissatisBed with the said order, hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the Non-applicant in his evidence/cross examination in Paragraph No. 29, 30, 33, 36 has admitted fact that he is having rich life style and has suggest he can pay the needed amount to applicants but no wishes to pay. He further submits that he has also admitted that the applicants at present dependent of their father-mother and has further admitted that he is Income-tax-Payer and has suppressed the fact of income and property. He further submits that the evidence of school fee receipt of both the applicants No.2 and 3 shows that the maintenance allowance was just noting in survival of life, a sum of rupees one lakh is appropriate to full Bll the survival. Therefore, they prays for enhancement in the maintenance amount. 6 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application Bled under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, sought maintenance amount from the non-applicant. Considering the prevailing inCation rate and the non-applicant’s responsibility towards his wife and child and upon evaluating the overall circumstances, the learned Family Court was directed the non- applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to the applicant No.1 and Rs. 1500/- per month to the applicant No.2 and Rs. 1000/- per month to the applicant No.3 towards maintenance (Total 4500/-). It appears that the learned Family Court, concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of Bnancial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the Bnding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not Bnd any illegality or inBrmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 7 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal