1 2025:CGHC:58809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1468 of 2025 1 - Ranveer Singh Ratre S/o Samaru Ram Ratre Aged About 38 Years R/o Village D 8/1 Township Nani Naroli, L.C. P.I.G. Tehsil Manrol District- Surat Gujrat OfÏcial Address Superintendent Engineer (Operation ) Unit 1-2 Gujrat Industries Power Ltd. Township Nani Naroli, L.C.P.I.G. Tehsil Manrol, District- Surat Gujrat ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Varsha Ratre W/o Ranveer Singh Ratre D/o Komal Kabirpanthi Aged About 39 Years R/o Balco Sector 3/810 B- Type Balco District- Korba (C.G.) Presently Residing C/o Pardeshi Ram Ghritlahre House No. 280/a Ward No. 37, Bhadarapara, Post And P.S. Balco Nagar, District- Korba (C.G.) 2 - Minor Athav S/o Ranveer Singh Ratre Aged About 5 Years Through Guardian And Mother Of Minor Smt. Varsha Ratre R/o Balco Sector 3/810 B- Type Balco District- Korba (C.G.) Presently Residing C/o Pardeshi Ram Ghritlahre House No. 280/a Ward No. 37, Bhadarapara, Post And P.S. Balco Nagar, District- Korba (C.G.) ---Respondent (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For petitioner : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate. For Respondent : None Hon'ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 04/12/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 2/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision. 2 2. On due consideration, I.A. No. 2/2025 stands allowed. The delay of 4 days in filing the criminal revision is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is heard finally. 4. The present criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 Act has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional/Upper Session Judge (FTC) Korba District Korba, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No. 41/2025 “Smt Varsha and Anr. Vs. Ranveer Singh Ratre”, whereby the learned Court below has affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba (C.G.) whereby the learned Court has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- in addition to an amount of Rs. 8,500/- as granted by the concerned court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as maintenance to the respondents. 5. Facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent no.1 are legally wedded husband and wife, and respondent no.2 is their son. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07/03/2014. Respondent No.2 was born on 03/06/2016. The Respondent submitted an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned court and after affording opportunity to both the parties Ld. Court below directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3000 and 2000 to the Respondent No. 1 and 2, respectively. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 1 and 2 submitted an application under Section 3 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of amount of maintenance and Ld. Court below modified the order of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5000 and 3500 for Respondent No. 1 and 2. respectively. Hence this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned family court has failed to appreciate that the respondent/applicant wife is misusing the child as a tool to harass the petitioner, whereas the petitioner husband is the victim of harassment at the hands of respondent no.1 The amount so awarded as maintenance is excessive. The learned Court below has erred in deciding the quantum of maintenance as Rs.5000/-. Ld. Court below has ignored the fact that the Petitioner is paying the respondents maintenance under the Cr. P.C. He further submit that the Respondent no.1 is a disgruntled wife not willing to perform her marital obligations and is willfully avoiding her duties of a wife and is misusing the child as a tool to harass the petitioner and thus is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. The petitioner has no such income as claimed by the respondents. He is facing serious financial burden and difficulties on account of the impugned order. The respondent no.1 has no sufficient reason to reside separately from the petitioner and therefore she is not entitled to any maintenance whatsoever, therefore, he prays for quashment of the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 and 15.03.2023. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records 4 with utmost circumspection. 8. It is an admitted position that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and respondent No.2 is their minor son. The material on record clearly establishes that respondent No.1 has no independent and sufficient source of income to maintain herself and the minor child. Merely because the wife is stated to be more educated, it cannot be presumed that she possesses adequate financial means to sustain herself and the child. The petitioner, despite alleging financial liabilities towards his parents and brother, has failed to substantiate the same by producing any cogent documentary evidence such as bank statements, medical bills or proof of remittances. In any event, the statutory and moral obligation of the petitioner to maintain his wife and minor child cannot be diluted on the ground of alleged responsibilities towards other family members. The courts below have rightly taken into consideration the educational expenses of the minor child, including the school fee receipts placed on record, and the overall cost of living, social status of the parties and earning capacity of the petitioner. The quantum of maintenance so fixed, namely Rs. 8,500/- as interim maintenance along with an additional amount of Rs. 5,000/-, cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. The findings recorded by the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles governing grant and enhancement of maintenance under Sections 125 and 127 of the Cr.P.C. / corresponding provisions of the 5 B.N.S.S. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned orders dated 15.03.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba and 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional/Upper Sessions Judge (FTC), Korba. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.16 18:56:04 +0530