1 2025:CGHC:7940 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 220 of 2025 1 - Dr. Somendra Nath Vishwas S/o Shri Mahendra Nath Vishwas Aged About 60 Years R/o Mahendra Kuti, Adarsh Colony, Behind Shimla Tent House, Dayalband, Bilaspur (C.G.) Zip No. 495001 (Clinic- Shop No. 09, Amar Complex, Juna Bilaspur). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sharmishtha Vishwas W/o Dr. Somendra Nath Vishwas Aged About 37 Years R/o At Present P.L. Cafe, Gayeshpur, P.O. Kataganj, P.S. Kalyani, District Nadiya (W.B.) 2 - Ankan Vishwas S/o Dr. Somendra Nath Vishwas Aged About 17 Years R/o At Present P.L. Cafe, Gayeshpur, P.O. Kataganj, P.S. Kalyani, District Nadiya (W.B.) (Res. No. 2 And 3 Are Through Its Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sharmishtha Vishwas) 3 - Ankit Vishwas S/o Dr. Somendra Nath Vishwas Aged About 11 Years R/o At Present P.L. Cafe, Gayeshpur, P.O. Kataganj, P.S. Kalyani, District Nadiya (W.B.) (Res. No. 2 And 3 Are Through Its Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sharmishtha Vishwas) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 14/02/2025 2 1. The present criminal revision is filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 28.12.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife and granted maintenance of Rs. 8000/- each in favour of respondent no. 2 and 3. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent no.1 /wife filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance against the husband/ petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was performed on 14.09.2005 at Aarya Samaj Mandir, Raipur, District Raipur according to Hindu Right and custom. Respondent no. 2 and 3 are children from the wedlock of the parties, and residing with the wife. After the marriage the respondent wife came to know that the petitioner was already married and his first wife was alive and one girl child was born. It is also further stated that when wife /respondent no.1 came Bilaspur various time and the petitioner /husband was staying with her in Hotels and then sent her back to West Bengal. It is also stated that the respondent no.1 has no source of income and the minor children are in her custody. The husband/petitioner is a doctor and is earning about 3 lakhs therefore she has requested for maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per months. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that learned family court committed an illegality in holding that the petitioner has 3 refused/neglected the maintenance of respondents. The learned family court has ignored the income of respondent no. 1 that affected adversely to the interest of applicant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent no. 1 is the vfwife of applicant and respondent no. 2 and 3 are minor sons of the applicant. With regard to the income of the applicant, the respondent no. 1 contended that the applicant is a doctor by profession and earns approximately Rs. 3,00,000/- per month but the same has been denied by the applicant and he himself has stated to be a private compounder and has shown an income of Rs. 10,000/- in his affidavit, but in accordance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another affidavit para (f) clause 09 he has not presented his bank account details for the last three years, hence it will be assumed that the applicant’s income is more than that. Therefore, the applicant is capable of maintaining the respondents. 6. Since, the respondent no. 2 and 3 are minor sons 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. 8000/- each to respondent no. 2 and 3, total Rs. 16,000/- per month is very 4 meager. 7. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur 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