1 2025:CGHC:5230 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 127 of 2025 1 - Dinesh Baghel S/o Balsingh Baghel Aged About 25 Years Occupation- Agriculture And Painting, R/o Village- Bharni, Jhapatguda, Police Station, Tahsil And District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Lata Baghel W/o Dinesh Baghel Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Bharni, Jhapatguda, Tahsil And District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh), Present Address- Village- Metawada, Police Station- Parpa, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Ku. Riyanshi Baghel D/o Dinesh Baghel Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Applicant No. 1 Smt. Lata Baghel, R/o Village- Bharni, Jhapatguda, Tahsil And District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh), Present Address- Village- Metawada, Police Station- Parpa, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 29/01/2025 1. The present Criminal Revision is filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the impugned order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family 2 Court, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 140/2022, whereby the application for grant of maintenance filed by the non-applicants under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been partly allowed and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 2000/- to non-applicant no. 1 and Rs. 1000/- to non-applicant no. 2, thus the total maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month to the non-applicants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that it was pleaded by the non- applicants in their application that the marriage of non-applicant no. 1 was solemnized with the applicant 2 years ago as per Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, she started to live in her matrimonial house with the applicant. After some time the behaviour of the applicant was changed and he started to consume liquor and assaulted non-applicant no. 1 and threatened that he will perform second marriage with another woman. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order dated 15.05.2024 is illegal and procedure suffering from illegality and perversity and hence it is liable to be set-aside/reduced. The learned family court ought to have considered the fact that neither the applicant nor his family members have ever acted and cruelty against the non-applicant no. 1. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of record shows that it is crystal clear that respondent no. 1 is legally wedded wife of applicant and respondent no. 2 is a minor daughter aged about 1 year of the applicant. The learned Judge, Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) has awarded maintenance of Rs. 2000/- in favour of respondent no. 1(wife) and Rs. 1000/- in favour of respondent no. 2 (minor daughter). 6. Since the respondent no. 1 is unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter, therefore it is the responsibility of the applicant who is the husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondent 3 no. 2 and who is working as a painter and is having an agricultural land. 7. The cost of per litre milk ranges from Rs. 60/- to Rs. 70/- which costs to a total of Rs. 1860/- to Rs. 2170/-. Since respondent no. 2 is a minor daughter who is aged about 1 year, therefore, she needs extra care. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the amount awarded by the Judge, Family Court Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) is very meagre and needs no interference. 9. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed on merits. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima