1 2025:CGHC:57310 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 966 of 2022 1 - Smt. Poonam Vaishnav W/o Shri Deepak Vaishnav Aged About 36 Years Presently Residing At C/o Tilak Das Bairagi, Bairan Bazar, Tehsil Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Soumya Vaishnav D/o Shri Deepak Vaishnav Aged About 7 Years Presently Residing At C/o Tilak Das Bairagi, Bairan Bazar, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh Since Minor Represented Through Her Mother, Smt. Poonam Vaishnav, W/o Shri Deepak Vaishnav 3 - Baby Aariya Vaishnav D/o Shri Deepak Vaishnav Aged About 2 Years Presently Residing At C/o Tilak Das Bairagi, Bairan Bazar, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh Since Minor Represented Through Her Mother, Smt. Poonam Vaishnav, W/o Shri Deepak Vaishnav 4 - Baba Anant Vaishnav S/o Shri Deepak Vaishnav Aged About 2 Years Presently Residing At C/o Tilak Das Bairagi, Bairan Bazar, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh Since Minor Represented Through Her Mother, Smt. Poonam Vaishnav, W/o Shri Deepak Vaishnav ... Applicant(s) versus Shri Deepak Vaishnav S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Vaishnav Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Crane Operator, Carbon Corporation Of India, Resident Of Raghero House, Room No. 03, Plot No. 1920, Survey No. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 201, Sani Chowk, Matoshri Park Shrinagar, Shramik Nagar, Saatpur, District - Nasik, Maharashtra Pin – 422012. ... respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandar, 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 06.08.2022 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.63/2021, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to each of applicants No. 2, 3, and 4. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants state that applicant No. 1 married the respondent on 02.05.2014 according to Hindu rites, and applicants No. 2 and 3 (daughters) and applicant No. 4 (son) were born from the marriage. After the marriage, the respondent allegedly began abusing and assaulting applicant No. 1, though she continued to stay with him hoping for improvement. During her first pregnancy, applicant No. 1 stayed at Raipur where applicant No. 2 was born on 20.02.2015, but the respondent did not take care of her. A 3 settlement was reached on 05.01.2017 wherein the respondent undertook to change his behaviour, and the parties again lived together. However, during her pregnancy in 2020, when applicants No. 3 and 4 were born on 08.09.2020 with medical complications, the respondent again failed to care for them, forcing the father of applicant No. 1 to bring her to Raipur for treatment. Thereafter, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 20.01.2021 seeking maintenance, to which the respondent filed replies. While both parties filed affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, only applicant No. 1 filed the affidavit mandated by the Supreme Court’s order dated 04.11.2020, and the respondent failed to do so. The trial Court, by order dated 25.04.2022, partly allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 5,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- each to applicants No. 2 to 4, leading to the filing of this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law, as the Court below failed to award maintenance from the date of the application and instead granted it only from the date of the order. It is contended that the Court ought to have appreciated the settled principle that maintenance should ordinarily be granted from the date of filing of the petition. He further submits that the maintenance awarded by the Court below is meagre and inadequate, considering the needs of the applicants. The Court failed to properly consider the respondent’s own admission that his monthly salary ranges 4 between Rs. 25,000/- to 28,000/-, which clearly establishes his financial capacity to pay a higher amount. He also submits that applicant also submits that the respondent earns an additional rental income of Rs. 7,500/- per month and thus has total earnings exceeding Rs. 37,500/- per month, which the Court below did not properly appreciate. It is further submitted that applicant No. 2 is studying in Class 1, resulting in regular educational expenses that the respondent is legally bound to bear, thereby justifying enhancement of the maintenance amount. 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 Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to each of applicants No. 2, 3, and 4 observing that the applicant-wife and her children were living separately for valid and proven reasons arising from the respondent-husband’s cruelty and neglect. The Court found that the wife had no independent 5 source of income and was unable to maintain herself and the children, whereas the respondent admitted earning between Rs. 25,000/- to 28,000/- per month. Since the respondent failed to rebut the applicant’s evidence, the Court held that the wife and children were entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 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 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