1 2025:CGHC:7377 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 197 of 2025 1 - Omprakash Shrivas S/o Late Umashankar Shrivas Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kewra, Police Station Jhilmili, Tahsil-Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.) (Non-Applicant) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Mamta Shrivas W/o Shri Omprakash Shrivas Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kewra, Police Station Jhilmili, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.), Present R/o Rajeev Nagar, Jamnipali, Darri, Tahsil-Thana Darri, District Korba (C.G.) (Applicant) 2 - Minor Mayra Thakur D/o Shri Omprakash Shrivas Aged About 3 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Her Legal/natural Guardian Mother Of The Respondent No. 1 Smt. Mamta Shrivas, R/o Village Kewra, Police Station Jhilmili, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.), Present R/o Rajeev Nagar, Jamnipali, Darri, Tahsil-Thana Darri, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 10/02/2025 1. The present Criminal Revision is filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the order 2 dated 20.11.2024 passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) in Cr. MJC No. 125/2021. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the applicant and the respondent got married on 06.12.2020, thereafter, they were living together and enjoying the married life and then respondent no. 2 was born on 12.09.2021. The respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. along with interim application for granting the maintenance amount for maintaining herself and her child. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad, illegal perverse and contrary to law and not applicable to the facts and circumstances fo the case. The learned Family Court has allowed the application of the maintenance amount of the respondent against the applicant and awarded the amount of Rs. 4000/- which is not justified and reasonable. The respondent made so many false allegation against the applicant regarding the cruelty and harassed the applicant and his family members. 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 respondent no. 1 is legally wedded wife of the applicant and respondent no. 2 is the minor daughter of the applicant who is aged about 3 months, who are unable to maintain themselves. The applicant is working as a sales man in Bajaj showroom. Applicant has made an allegation 3 against the wife regarding her character without any cogent reason or evidence, therefore respondent/wife has sufficent reason to liver separately from her husband/applicant. 6. The applicant/husband cannot be absolved from his liability and responsibility to maintain his wife and daughter till she attains the age of majority or till she remains unmarried or unemployed. Whatever be the dispute between the husband and the wife, a child should not be made to suffer. Since the wife is unable to maintain herself and her daughter, therefore, a reasonable/sufficient amount is required for the maintenance of her daughter including her education, etc. which shall have to be paid by the husband. The learned Family Court has awarded Rs. 4000/- per month which is meagre amount to the respondents for their maintenance. 7. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District- Korba in Cr. MJC No. 125/2021. 8. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is dismissed on merits. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima 4