1 2025:CGHC:57316 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 594 of 2022 1. Smt. Poonam Parakh W/o Kamal Parakh, Aged About 26 Years R/o C/o Pankaj Provision Store Behind Jain Bhawan, Charoda BMY, Tahsil Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Abhigya Parakh D/o Kamal Parakh Aged About 1 Year Natural Guardian Smt. Poonam Parakh, R/o C/o Pankaj Provision Store Behind Jain Bhawan, Charoda BMY, Tahsil Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Abhishree Parakh D/o Kamal Parakh Aged About 1 Year Natural Guardian Smt. Poonam Parakh, R/o C/o Pankaj Provision Store Behind Jain Bhawan, Charoda BMY, Tahsil Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Kamal Parakh S/o Phool Chand Parakh R/o Gurudev Collection, Madhu Chowk, Station Road, Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Ms. Akanaksha Jain , learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been 昀椀led by the applicants with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.27 10:19:11 +0530 2 “It is therefore, prayed that the Revision may kindly be allowed and the maintenance amount may kindly be enhanced upto Rs. 45,000/- P.M. and the same may kindly be awarded from the date of application, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant No. 1 had 昀椀led an application for grant of maintenance with the averment that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage took place on 24.06.2011. Out of their wedlock, she has twin girl children, i.e., applicants No. 2 and 3. However, after one and a half years of marriage, the respondent started harassing, humiliating, beating the applicant No. 1 and ultimately forcefully expelled her from the matrimonial home in the year 2013. Thereafter, despite being 昀椀nancially capable of maintaining his wife and two minor children, the respondent failed to provide any maintenance. Hence, the applicant 昀椀led the present maintenance application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court acted with material irregularity. After recording a 昀椀nding that the applicant was residing with the respondent and that she has twin daughters from the respondent, the learned Court wrongly rejected the application for grant of maintenance on 昀氀imsy grounds. He also submits that it is an admitted fact that the brother of the respondent is jointly running another shop since 2016 under the name “Gurudev Saree Ladies Wear.” The photographs of “Gurudev Cloth,” “Gurudev Saree Ladies Wear,” and “Gurudev Collection” were exhibited before the Trial Court. This fact has also been mentioned in Para No. 8 of the impugned order. The respondent is earning jointly Rs. 3,50,000/- every month, but he falsely stated on oath (contrary to the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 3 regarding truthful disclosure) that he earns income only from “Gurudev Collection.” This false statement has been recorded in Para No. 15 of the impugned order. Thus, the Respondent has committed an o昀昀ence by giving a false a昀케davit and suppressing material facts. He further submits that the learned Family Court has held that the total joint income of the Respondent is Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. However, without considering the individual income of the Respondent, only Rs. 15,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance, which is not reasonable or su昀케cient for the livelihood of the applicant and her children. The learned Family Court ought to have awarded Rs. 45,000/- per month from the date of the application, considering that the proceedings continued for 9 long years without any delay on the part of the applicants, and no interim maintenance was provided during this entire period. Therefore, maintenance should have been granted from the date of the application. He also submits that the respondent has three shops in Balod City, which are being looked after by his two brothers and father. Presently, the Respondent earns approximately Rs. 3,50,000/- per month, and after dividing this in three shares, the Respondent’s share comes to more than Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. Out of this income, the Respondent’s brother Ritesh has opened another shop, and the Respondent’s father has constructed a double-storey building in Balod City. However, the Respondent has made false statements before the Trial Court regarding his actual income. On the other hand, the applicant is presently dependent upon her aged parents. Her daily expenditure, including school fees of the children, travel expenses for attending Court, and basic livelihood expenses, is quite substantial. Therefore, the maintenance amount of Rs. 45,000/- per month ought to have been awarded from the date of the application. The impugned order contains 4 no reason or endorsement explaining why maintenance was not awarded from the date of the application. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission and prayers made by learned counsel for the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 昀椀led by the applicants and granted maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 4,000/- each to applicant Nos. 2 and 3, observing the income and the social and economic status of both parties, as well as the current price index. The amount awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 昀椀nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in昀椀rmity 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek