1 2025:CGHC:57235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1422 of 2025 1. Hembai Chandra W/o Ramadhar Chandra Aged About 41 Years R/o Akalsara, P.S. And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti Chhattisgarh At Present Singhara, P.S. And Tahsil Malkharoda, District Sakti Chhattisgarh 2. Kumari Nidhi Chandra D/o Ramadhar Chandra Aged About 21 Years R/o Akalsara, P.S. And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti Chhattisgarh At Present Singhara, P.S. And Tahsil Malkharoda, District Sakti Chhattisgarh 3. Kumari Garima Chandra D/o Ramadhar Chandra Aged About 17 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Hembai Chandra, R/o Akalsara, P.S. And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti Chhattisgarh At Present Singhara, P.S. And Tahsil Malkharoda, District Sakti Chhattisgarh 4. Ma. Naman Chandra S/o Ramadhar Chandra Aged About 13 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Hembai Chandra, R/o Akalsara, P.S. And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti Chhattisgarh At Present Singhara, P.S. And Tahsil Malkharoda, District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Ramadhar Chandra S/o Late Parasram Chandra R/o Akalsara, P.S. and Tahsil Jaijaipur, District -Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.27 11:03:22 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Link Family Court, Sakti, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.102/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- each to applicants No. 1, 2, and 3 (applicants No. 2 and 3 till their marriage) and Rs. 2,000/- to applicant No. 4 (till attaining majority), totaling Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of the application. 2. The brief facts of the case is that applicant No. 1 is the wife and applicants No. 2 to 4 are the children of the respondent. The marriage of applicant No. 1 with the respondent took place in the year 2001 at Village Singhara, and out of their wedlock applicants No. 2 to 4 were born. They are students and are presently residing with their mother (applicant No. 1). It is alleged that the respondent assaulted and threatened applicant No. 1 and that he has contracted a second marriage. Applicant No. 1 lodged complaints on 21.09.2022 and 26.09.2022 at Police Station Baradwar, on the basis of which an FIR was registered against the respondent under Sections 294, 506, and 323 of the IPC. The applicants have been residing at Singhara since December 2022. Applicant No. 1 is a housewife with no source of income, whereas the respondent is running a poultry farm and a fishery business, earning approximately Rs. 15,00,000/- per year. He also owns 6 acres of agricultural land from which he earns about Rs. 3,50,000/- per year. Therefore, the applicant 3 moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 40,000/-. After notice, the respondent submitted his reply denying the allegations and contending that applicant No. 1 was living separately without sufficient reason and of her own will, hence she is not entitled to maintenance. He further alleged that applicant No. 1 is running a boutique at Jaijaipur and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. After trial, the learned Family Court held that the applicants had proved their case and partially allowed the application. The Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- each to applicants No. 1, 2, and 3 (applicants No. 2 and 3 till their marriage) and Rs. 2,000/- to applicant No. 4 (till attaining majority), totaling Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of the application. Accordingly, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 18.07.2025. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.07.2025, the applicants have preferred this instant revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family court is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The learned Family Court completely ignored the fact that applicant No. 1 has no source of income, whereas the respondent is running a poultry farm and a fishery business, earning approximately Rs. 15,00,000/- per annum. He also owns 6 acres of agricultural land, from which he earns about Rs. 3,50,000/- per year. The learned Family Court granted maintenance on the lower side, which is inadequate. The learned Family Court had earlier granted interim maintenance in favor of the applicants. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that at present, the 4 applicants have no source of income, a fact which has not been disproved by the respondent. The applicants are the lawful wife and children of the respondent, and the social and moral duty of their maintenance rests upon the respondent. Therefore, the applicants are found entitled to receive monthly maintenance from the respondent. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti