1 2025:CGHC:27223 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 101 of 2017 1 - Smt. Annapurna Upadhyay W/o Vinod Upadhayay Aged About 26 Years R/o In Front Of Police Station- Chilphi, Tahsil- Bodla, Civil And Revenue District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Samar Upadhayay S/o Vinod Upadhayay Aged About 4 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Annapurna Upadhayay, R/o In Front Of Police Station- Chilphi, Tahsil- Bodla, Civil And Revenue District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Vinod Upadhayay S/o Lakshmikant Upadhayay Aged About 30 Years R/o Bust Stand Chilphi, Police Station- Chilphi , Tahsil- Bodla, Civil And Revenue District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicant. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and the impugned order dated 24.08.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, District-Kabirdham (C.G.) may kindly be modified, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant No. 1, Smt. Annapurna, was married to the non-applicant, Vinod, on 12/06/2008. Out of their wedlock, applicant No. 2, Samar, and another son, Surya Upadhyay, were born. The minor child Surya is residing with the non-applicant. During the course of the proceedings, it has also been revealed and accepted that the minor child Samar (Applicant No. 2) is also residing with the applicant No.1. Applicant No. 1, Smt. Annapurna and the Non-Applicant, Vinod, are living separately. The Non-Applicant used to assault the applicant No. 1, Smt. Annapurna, alleging that no motorcycle was given in dowry and doubting her character. On 26/05/2016, he physically assaulted her and threw her out of the house, following which she lodged a report at Police Station Chilphi. The applicant No. 1, has no independent source of income. The Non-Applicant runs a shop at the Chilphi Bus Stand and also earns commission by coordinating buses there. From these activities, the Non-Applicant earns approximately ₹50,000/- per month. Due to lack of financial support, the applicants are unable to bear their day to day expenses and is facing great 3 hardship. Therefore, they filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/-. per month for herself and the minor child, Applicant No. 2. 4. Learned Family Court concerned after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 24.08.2016, whereby the non-applicant/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant No.1 from the date of impugned order until any order is made and dismissed the application of the applicant No.2 and further ordered to bear Rs. 500/- for expenses of the proceeding. Hence, this revision petition for enhancement of maintenance amount. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the impugned order dated 24.08.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, District - Kabirdham (C.G.), is bad, illegal perverse and contrary to law and evidence available on record and deserve to be set-aside. The learned court below erred in granting maintenance from the date of order, whereas, the code of criminal procedure provided the maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be modified by this Court. He further submits that The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the application of the applicants in proper perspective. The learned Family Court erred in finding of determination of the fact on various reasons and settled down the alimony in wrong presumption and contents have been wrongly taken into 4 consideration, which is perverse, bad in law and needs modification in the order by increasing the maintenance allowance up to Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of the applicants because the non- applicant is earning about Rs. 50,000/- per month by shop and commission work of Bus Stand. The learned trial Court also erred in granting very low amount on the part of expenses for filing of the case, it may also be modified/enhanced by this Court. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the learned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs. 1000/- to the applicant No.1/wife and dismissed the application of the applicant No.2, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding 5 recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal