1 2025:CGHC:57305 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1054 of 2022 1 - Smt. Archana Chandrakar W/o Vedkant Chandrakar, Aged About 30 Years R/o Through House Of Shri Devnarayan Chandrakar, Village Kuthrel, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shrivans Chandrakar S/o Vedkant Chandrakar, Aged About 6 Years Applicant No. 2 Shrivanse Chandrakar Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Archana Chandrakar Wifr Of Vedkant Chandrakar Aged About 30 Years. R/o Through House Of Shri Devnarayan Chandrakar, Village Kuthrel, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Vedkant Chandrakar S/o Shri Chandrashekhar Chandrakar Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Near Santoshi Mandir, Ward No. 04, Gaya Nagar Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, holding the brief of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /11/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by learned Second Additional Principal AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.662/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to applicant No.2, towards maintenance and rejected the claim of applicant No.1. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. Applicant No.1 married the respondent on 24.04.2016 in village Kuthrel, District Durg, according to religious rites and social customs. It is alleged that within 2–3 months of marriage, the respondent and his family members began harassing Applicant No.1 with repeated demands for dowry. The respondent is also alleged to have consumed alcohol frequently and subjected Applicant No.1 to physical assault and verbal abuse over trivial matters. It is further claimed that the respondent willfully neglected and refused to maintain the applicants, compelling them to seek a maintenance amount of Rs.27,000/- through the present petition. The respondent appeared before the trial Court and denied all allegations. After evaluating the evidence, the trial Court granted maintenance only to applicant No.2 while rejecting the claim of applicant No.1, leading to the filing of the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 is bad in law and suffers from perversity 3 and erroneous appreciation of evidence. The learned court below failed to properly evaluate the testimony of applicant No.1, who clearly proved that she was subjected to continuous torture, harassment, and dowry demands by the respondent, compelling her to reside separately for sufficient and justified reasons. Despite this, the court wrongly concluded that she was living apart without cause and rejected her claim for maintenance without adequate reasoning. He further submits that the respondent is earning a substantial income and has no other financial liabilities, yet the trial court awarded an unreasonably low amount of maintenance to applicant No.2 and completely denied maintenance to applicant No.1. The court also ignored the fact that applicant No.1 has no independent source of income, and failed to consider the settled principle of law that a wife and minor child are entitled to a fair portion often up to 50% of the respondent’s income for their sustenance. Additionally, the learned court did not take into account the expenses related to the minor child’s upbringing, education, and future responsibilities, nor the fact that the respondent has never provided any support or care since the birth of applicant No.2. Considering the present cost of living and the respondent’s earning capacity, the maintenance awarded is disproportionately low and requires enhancement along with recognition of applicant No.1’s lawful entitlement to maintenance. 4 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to applicant No.2, towards maintenance and rejected the claim of applicant No.1 observing the overall evidence, the court concluded that applicant No.1 failed to prove any sufficient or justified reason for living separately from the respondent, as she herself admitted that she did not want to live with him. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, since applicant No.2 is the minor son of the respondent, the father is legally bound to maintain him. Considering the income, needs, and circumstances of the parties, the Court held that applicant No.2 is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned. 7. Considering the submissions 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 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil