1 2025:CGHC:40156 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 963 of 2023 1 - Seema Sahu W/o Shri Pawan, Kumar Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Brijutola, Tahsil, And Thana Mohla, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dhalika Sahu, D/o Pawan Kumar Sahu Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Its Mother And W/o Shri Pawan Kumar Sahu, R/o Village Brijutola, Tahsil, And Thana Mohla, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Pawan Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Raghunath Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Turmuda, Thana And Post Manchuva, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been /led by the applicants with the following prayer: “The applicants, therefore humbly prays that the Hon'ble court kindly be please to call for the record of courts below and an order dated RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 4/8/23, passed by learned Family Court Rajnandgaon, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 37/2021 may kindly be please to modify by enhancing the maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000 as claimed may kindly be granted in favour of the applicants from the date of application for grant of maintenance, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that applicant No.1 was married to the Respondent on 19.04.2018, and from the wedlock applicant No.2, a minor daughter aged about one and a half years, was born. It is alleged that soon after marriage, the Respondent and his family members subjected applicant No.1 to physical and mental cruelty, demanding Rs.2,00,000/- from her father and, upon the birth of a female child, taunting that her education and marriage would be borne by her parents. It is further alleged that on 23.01.2020, the Respondent and his relatives attempted to strangulate her, and on 12.05.2020, she was brutally assaulted and ousted from the matrimonial home with a threat not to return without bringing Rs.2,00,000/-. Since then, she has been residing at her parental home without any support. The Respondent is stated to be employed as a contractual Professor at Kakatiya P.G. College, Jagdalpur, earning Rs.21,000/- per month, besides owning 6 acres of agricultural land yielding Rs.25,000/- annually, while applicant No.1 has no independent source of income and requires Rs.10,000/- per month for her own and the child’s maintenance. 3 The Respondent, however, denied the allegations, asserting that applicant No.1 runs a cloth shop in her name earning Rs.30,000/- per month and that he survives on meagre wages. Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence, income, living standards of the Respondent, and the needs of the applicants, the learned Family Court directed the Respondent to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to applicant No.2, payable in the /rst week of each month, giving rise to the present revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the marriage between Applicant No.1 and the Respondent took place on 19.04.2018, and from the wedlock, Applicant No.2, a minor daughter, was born. It is alleged that soon after marriage, the Respondent and his family subjected Applicant No.1 to cruelty and harassment for dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, even attempting to strangulate her, and ultimately ousted her from the matrimonial home. The Respondent, working as a contractual Professor earning Rs.21,000/- per month and possessing 6 acres of agricultural land, has su?cient means but has failed to maintain the applicants, who have no independent source of income. Despite the evidence establishing neglect and the applicants’ dependence, the learned Family Court, without proper appreciation of the cost of living, the object and scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the Respondent’s means, awarded a meagre maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to Applicant No.1 and Rs.1,000/- to Applicant No.2, which is inadequate, contrary to the material on record, and against the principles of 4 social justice. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside to the extent of quantum, and maintenance be suitably enhanced in view of the present circumstances. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court upon a careful appraisal of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and having regard to the standard of living, income, and means of the Respondent vis-à-vis the needs, health, and educational requirements of the applicants, has rightly exercised its discretion under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in awarding maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to applicant No.2, payable in the /rst week of each month. The order reBects due consideration of both parties’ contentions, including the Respondent’s plea regarding the alleged income of applicant No.1 and his own /nancial condition, and arrives at a just, reasonable, and balanced determination in light of the material on record. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the /nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in/rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan