1 2025:CGHC:7939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 219 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sandhya Sahu W/o Shri Dharmendra Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Behind Sangam Marriage Palace Boriyakhurd, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Applicant) 2 - Minor Ku. Harshita Sahu D/o Dharmendra Sahu Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sandhya Sahu R/o Behind Sangam Marriage Palace Boriyakhurd, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Dharmendra Sahu S/o Shri Banshilal Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Street No. 4, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Non Applicant) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 14/02/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing the instant revision. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned therein, I am 2 inclined to allow I.A. No. 02/2025 and the delay of 22 days is hereby condoned. 3. The present Criminal Revision is filed by the applicants under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act against the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Family Court Raipur, District- Raipur C.G. in Misc. Criminal Case No. 595/2022 whereby the learned Family Court has granted maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- for the applicant no. 2 till the date of her majority and rejected the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. of applicant no. 1. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants had filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for seeking total maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month (Rs. 10,000/- to applicant no. 1 and Rs. 10,000/- to applicant no. 2) from respondent that, it is admitted fact that on 28.04.2009 the applicant no. 1/ Sandhya Sahu and respondent had solemnized their marriage according to Hindu Rites and rituals and applicant no. 2 was born out of their wedlock. After marriage, the applicant no. 1 peacefully resided with her husband at her matrimonial house and after sometime of her marriage, the respondent and his family members started harassing and torturing the applicant physically and mentally for demand of dowry. Respondent committed marpit with the applicant no. 1 and kicked her out of the house. 5. After considering the application and reply filed by both the parties 3 and the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned family Court vide its order dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure A-1) granted amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to applicant no. 2 by the learned Family Court, hence this revision is being filed for enhancement of maintenance amount. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge Family Court Raipur, District Raipur is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. Applicant no. 1 is legally wedded wife of the respondent and the Family Court has not granted any amount in her favour. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Perusal of record shows that it is an admitted fact that the applicant no. 1 is legally wedded wife of respondent and applicant no. 2 is legitimate child of respondent. It has been established that the applicant no. 01/Mrs. Sandhya Sahu and applicant No. 02/ Harshita Sahu have sufficient reasons to live separate from the respondent. 9. Now it has to be seen in the case whether the applicants are entitled to receive the amount of maintenance from the respondent. In this regard, from perusal of the application and affidavit submitted by applicant no. 1 under Order 18 Rule 04 CPC and the reply and evidence presented by respondent/Dharmendra 4 Sahu, it is clear that applicant no. 01 Mrs. Sandhya Sahu is working as a teacher in Theresian Academy, Boriyakhurd, Old Dhamtari Road, Raipur and as per the documents presented by the respondent, the applicant no. 01/Mrs. Sandhya Sahu is currently getting an income of Rs 19,200/- per month. Thus, the applicant no. 01/Mrs. Sandhya Sahu is able to maintain herself. In such a situation, it does not seem appropriate for applicant no. 1/Mrs. Sandhya Sahu to be given maintenance amount from the respondent/ Dharmendra Sahu. 10. So far as the applicant no. 2 is concerned, she is minor daughter of the respondent, therefore, it is the duty of father to maintain his child. Therefore, applicant no. 2 is entitled to get maintenance from her father. Since the learned Family Court has already granted maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of applicant no. 2, therefore, there is no need to enhance the amount of maintenance. 11. Hence, the order passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur is neither illegal nor perverse and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. 12. Accordingly the present Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima