1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1015 of 2016 1. Pooja Mishra And Anr. W/o - Umakant Mishra Aged About 39 Years R/o Qr. No. - 76 I, Pragati Nagar, Jalebi Chowk, Camp - 1, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2. Raman Mishra S/o Umakant Mishra Aged About 17 Years Through Mother Pooja Mishra, R/o Qtr. No. - 76 I, Pragati Nagar, Jalebi Chowk, Camp-1, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ...Applicants versus • Umakant Mishra, S/o - Late Ram Paras Mishra, aged about 42 Years, R/o - M.I.G. - 1-1596, M. P. Housing Board, Kailash Nagar, In Front of Jamal Thana, Jai Maa Kirana Stores, Bhilai, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anand Kumar Shukla, Mr. Parth Shrivastava and Ms. Zainab Vanak, Advocates. For Non-applicant : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 22/03/2025 1. This instant revision has been filed by the present applicants under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 11.07.2016 passed by the 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, C.G. in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.776/2014, whereby the application filed by the applicants under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance has been dismissed in respect of applicant No.1- AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.03.22 17:01:03 +0530 2 Pooja Mishra, however, with respect to her son/applicant No.2 namely Raman Mishra, the same has been allowed while directing the non- applicant / husband to pay Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance till he attains the age of majority. 2. Facts of the case are that marriage of applicant No.1- Pooja Mishra was solemnized with non-applicant- Umakant Mishra on 26.04.1999 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and out of their wedlock, applicant No.2-Raman Mishra was born. It is alleged that after marriage, non-applicant/husband and his family members started quarreling and harassing her and ousted her from the house, due to which, she went to her parental home and started living there. Since the non-applicant / husband was not taking care of her and her son and she has no sufficient source of earning, therefore, she along with her son filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. It is further alleged that non-applicant/husband is in private job and is earning Rs.6,000/- per month; by running a grocery shop, he earns Rs.10,000/- and also earns sufficient amount from his agricultural land. However, after considering the evidence and material available on record, the Family Court partly allowed the application filed by her as mentioned in opening para of this order. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.07.2016, the applicants are before this Court for granting maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he is not challenging the order passed by the Family Court in respect of applicant No.2- Raman Mishra and only confining her argument with regard to the maintenance not granted to applicant No.1- Pooja Mishra/wife. He 3 submits that applicant No.1- Pooja Mishra is unable to maintain herself and her financial condition is not good and for maintaining herself and applicant No.2, she has to join a private job in K.K. Electronics from where she is getting salary of Rs.3,000/- per month only, which is not sufficient for her livelihood, but the learned Family Court did not consider the above fact and recorded a finding that applicant No.1- Pooja Mishra is capable to maintain herself and has sufficient means to meet her expenses, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance, which is perverse and contrary to law. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Non-applicant / husband supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court and submits that applicant No.1 / wife is fully capable to maintain herself. He further submits that the learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, has rightly rejected the maintenance application in respect of the applicant No.1 / wife, which needs no interference by this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not disputed that appellant No.1- Pooja Mishra and non-applicant- Umakant Mishra are wife and husband. The learned Family Family Court in issue No.3 has held that applicant No.1/Pooja Mishra -wife has sufficient reason to live separately from non-applicant/husband. However, no separate revision has been filed by the non- applicant/husband with regard to said finding, therefore, the finding recorded by the Family Court in this regard has attained finality. 7. As regards the maintenance, though applicant No.1-Pooja Mishra/wife 4 in the maintenance application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which was filed on 12.09.2014 has stated that she is doing a job in K.K. Electronics and earning Rs.2,500/- per month, however, in her statement which was recorded on 30.05.2016, she admitted that at present, she is getting Rs.3,000/- per month as her salary increases by Rs.500/- in 2-3 years, which is not sufficient for her & her son's livelihood. In her statement, she has stated on oath that non- applicant/husband is earning Rs.6,000/- per month by doing a private job and also earns money from grocery shop and agricultural land. The learned Family Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, has held that non-applicant/husband has sufficient means of earning and fixed his income at Rs.7,000/- per month for disposing of this case, which was not challenged by the non-applicant/husband and after considering the income, social and economic status of the parties, granted maintenance to his son/applicant No.2 to Rs.1,500/- per month, but dismissed the application in respect of applicant No.1/wife, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not just and proper. 8. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that applicant No.1-Pooja Mishra is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant; in view of the rate of inflation since 2014 and also looking socio-economic status of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that applicant No.1-Pooja Mishra/Wife is also entitled to get maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the Family Court that applicant No.1/wife is not entitled for any maintenance is set aside and it is ordered that non- applicant/husband shall pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month to 5 applicant No.1/wife- Pooja Mishra from the date of filing of maintenance application. However, maintenance amount granted by the Family Court to applicant No.2- Raman Mishra at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month till he attains the age of majority, shall remain intact. 9. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein above. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh