1 2025:CGHC:8451 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 166 of 2025 1 - Ashok Das Mahant S/o Late Chhedidas Aged About 40 Years Caste Panika, R/o Shivnagar, Rumgara, Thana Balco, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1 - Minor Santosh Das S/o Ashok Das Mahant Aged About 15 Years Caste Panika, R/o Shivnagar, Rumgara, Thana Balco, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.). --- Through Natural Guardian Of Respondent No. 1 Grandmother Kero Bai W/o Late Pawan Das, Aged About 65 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Bankimongara Jungle Side, Thana Bankimongara District Korba (C.G.). 2 - Minor Neeraj Das S/o Ashok Das Mahant Aged About 13 Years Caste Panika, R/o Shivnagar, Rumgara, Thana Balco, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.). --- Through Natural Guardian Of Respondent No. 2 Grandmother Kero Bai W/o Late Pawan Das, Aged About 65 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Bankimongara Jungle Side, Thana Bankimongara District Korba (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 18/02/2025 1. The present Criminal Revision is filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order 2 dated 12.12.2024 passed by Judge, Family Court, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 94/2022 whereby the application filed by the respondents which has been partly allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the respondents are minor sons of the applicant and they have filed case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance. The respondents are living with grandmother. Thereafter, the applicant has filed the reply to the application filed by the respondents and also stated that after death of their mother the applicant was taking care of them carefully. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the learned Family Court has failed to see that the applicant was taking care of respondents from childhood but due to pressure of grandmother they filed application for maintenance. The applicant is ready to keep the respondents with him and he is ready to take care. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. From perusal of record it is crystal clear that the respondents are minor sons of the applicant who are at present living with their maternal grandmother. The applicant is working as daily wage labour in BALCO Plant and is earning Rs. 11,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month. The Learned Judge, Family Court, Korba has granted Rs. 2500/- per month as maintenance to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 3 2500/- per month as maintenance to respondent no. 2, in total Rs. 5,000/-. 6. Since, the respondents are minor and are studying therefore, they are unable to maintain themselves and are entitled for maintenance. It is the liability of the father to maintain his children. So far as the question relating to amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court is concerned, looking to the present rate of inflation, the amount of Rs. 2500/- to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 2500/- to respondent no. 2 is very meager. 7. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated passed by the Judge, Family Court, Korba is neither illegal nor perverse and also there is no jurisdictional error therefore, needs no interference. 8. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is dismissed on merits. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima