1 2025:CGHC:55836 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1394 of 2025 1. Yashoda Sinha W/o Dageshwar Sinha Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Anandgaon, Police Station Berla, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) 2. Arnav Sinha S/o Dageshwar Sinha Aged About 4 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Yashoda Sinha, W/o Dageshwar Sinha (Applicant No.1) R/o Village Anandgaon, Police Station Berla, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) 3. Kushan Sinha S/o Dageshwar Sinha Aged About 2 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Yashoda Sinha, W/o Dageshwar Sinha (Applicant No.1) R/o Village Anandgaon, Police Station Berla, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Dageshwar Sinha S/o Krishna Kumar Sinha Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Anandgaon, Police Station Berla, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.11.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to contest this criminal revision when the case is called out for hearing. 2. Heard Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, learned counsel, appearing for the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.18 11:36:23 +0530 2 applicants. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to enhance the maintenance amount of the applicants as prayed in the application under 125 of the CRPC, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that an application under Section 125 of the CrPC was filed by the applicants, who are the wife and minor child of the respondent. In the said application, the applicant No.1/wife pleaded that she performed her second marriage with the respondent/husband after obtaining a divorce from her first husband in the year 2017 (divorce dated 22.01.2017). The first wife of the respondent had passed away in the year 2016, therefore, the respondent also performed his second marriage with applicant No.1. Out of their wedlock, two children, applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 were born. It was further pleaded that after the marriage, the husband started subjecting the wife to cruelty. Due to this, the wife lodged a complaint at the concerned Police Station on 08.06.2020. However, after counselling, the husband compromised the matter, and thereafter the wife resumed cohabitation with him. Subsequently, the husband again started torturing the wife regularly in a drunken state. Consequently, the wife lodged another complaint at Police Station Kandarka on 09.12.2023. Thereafter, the applicants began residing separately, and the husband stopped providing any financial support to her and the children. The wife also pleaded that the husband is engaged in mobile-repairing business and earns approximately Rs. 35,000/- per month. She further stated that the husband is the owner of about 5 acres of agricultural land and earns around Rs. 3 lakhs annually from agriculture. Hence, she sought a total maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- 3 per month (Rs. 15,000/- for herself and Rs. 10,000/- each for the two children). 5. The husband filed his reply and denied all adverse allegations. He stated that after marriage, they were residing at the wife’s parental home separately. When her parents came to take the applicant with them, they left on good terms. However, when he went later to bring her back, the wife and her parents refused and threatened him. He further stated that the applicant is an educated lady working as a nurse and earns approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month, and therefore she is not entitled to the maintenance claimed. 6. The learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, passed the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 and partly allowed the application, awarding maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- each to applicant Nos. 2 and 3. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, passed without proper application of mind, and contrary to the object and spirit of Section 125 CrPC. He submits that it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children, the order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous and the maintenance awarded is liable to be enhanced. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature, the impugned order is unjustified and illegal. He also submits that the learned Family Court did not consider the documents relating to the income of the respondent/husband. The husband earns approximately Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum from agriculture and Rs. 35,000/- per month from his business, yet the Court awarded a meagre maintenance of only Rs. 4 4,000/-, which is grossly inadequate. Learned Family Court also failed to appreciate that the applicant/wife has no independent source of income, and she is solely dependent on the maintenance awarded by the Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. 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 awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- each to applicant Nos. 2 and 3, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the finding 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. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek