1 2025:CGHC:40161 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 732 of 2023 1 - Kunti Chouhan D/o Hiru Ram Chouhan Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Gouria, P.S. Narayanpur, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Avavya Chouhan D/o Nalkumar Chouhan Aged About 3 Years Through Her Natural Guardian Mother-Applicant No. 1 Kunti Chouhan) R/o Village Gouria, P.S. Narayanpur, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Nalkumar Chouhan S/o Dhirja Ram Aged About 33 Years Occupation Business And Transportation, R/o Village Gouria, P.S. Narayanpur, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and impugned Judgment and Decree dated 06.05.2023, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 09/2021 passed by the Family Court, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, passed in case of "Smt. Kunti Chouhan & Anr. Vs. Nalkumar Chouhan" may kindly be modified and maintenance granted to applicant no.2 may be adequately enhanced and made payable from date of application for maintenance i.e. 19.01.2021, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and her minor daughter, inter alia alleging that on 07.08.2017 the respondent committed rape upon her, which was reported to the police, and that after trial the respondent was acquitted of charges of rape and abduction. It was further alleged that the applicant No. 1 and the respondent were married in a Shiv Mandir, that she resided with him for about four days before being driven out of the house, and that on 24.02.2018 applicant No. 2 was born, of whom the respondent is the natural guardian. Alleging that the respondent earns Rs.50,000–Rs.60,000 per month, she sought Rs.23,000/- per month as maintenance. The Respondent, in reply, denied the allegations, denied any marriage, disputed paternity of Applicant 3 No. 2, and claimed the application was false, further contending that Applicant No. 1 earns Rs.15,000 per month through stitching work. The Family Court, by judgment dated 06.05.2023, on the basis of a DNA report confirming the respondent as the father of Applicant No. 2 and his own admission in cross-examination to maintain her if paternity was established, awarded Rs.4,000 per month to applicant No. 2 from the date of judgment until her marriage. Aggrieved by the meagre quantum and the commencement of maintenance from the date of judgment instead of the date of application, the Applicants seek modification of the impugned order for enhancement of maintenance from the date of application i.e. 19.01.2021. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, it is liable to be modified. The learned Family Court has erred in awarding only Rs.4,000/- per month to applicant No. 2, which is grossly inadequate for the proper upbringing of a child, despite the fact that the Respondent has sufficient means, earning Rs.50,000– Rs.60,000 per month and owning a tractor, Bolero vehicle, and immovable property in the village. The Court failed to appreciate that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution of women and children, and that Applicant No. 1 lacks sufficient means to maintain her daughter. Furthermore, the learned Family Court erred in granting maintenance from the date of the order rather than from the date of the application, in clear violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble 4 Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein it has been held that maintenance should be awarded from the date of filing of the application, as the delay in disposal of proceedings is beyond the control of the applicant. In view of these facts and the settled legal position, the impugned order warrants modification by enhancing the quantum of maintenance and directing its payment from the date of application i.e. 19.01.2021. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jashpur, District- Jashpur, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and material on record, has rightly awarded maintenance in the sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to applicant No. 2 from the date of judgment until her marriage. The Court, while appreciating the DNA report which conclusively established the respondent as the biological father of the minor child, also took into account the respondent’s own statement in cross-examination that he was willing to maintain applicant No. 2 if paternity was proved. In view of the limited financial claim established by the applicants and the absence of sufficient proof regarding the exact quantum of the respondent’s income, the Family Court has exercised sound judicial 5 discretion in determining a reasonable amount of maintenance commensurate with the proved facts and circumstances of the case, and the order so passed is just, proper, and in accordance with law. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan