1 2025:CGHC:48598 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 136 of 2021 1 - Smt. Munita Toppo W/o Rohan Lal Toppo Aged About 26 Years Caste Urao, Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Dumki Khutipara, Police Station Dhaurpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Manuvel Toppo S/o Tohan Lal Toppo Aged About 3 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Munita Toppo W/o Roshan Lal Toppo Aged About 26 Years, Caste Urao, Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Dumki Khutipara, Police Station Dhaurpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus Rohan Lal Toppo S/o Bhamchan Toppo Aged About 28 Years Caste Urao, Occupation Rajmistri And Agriculturist, R/o Village Laduva Khutipara, Near Panchyat Bhawan, Police Station Rajpur District Balrampur Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For petitioners : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to modify the order dated 08.01.2021, passed by the court of Family Court, Ambikapur, District: Surguja (C.G.), presiding officer Shri Thomas Ekka, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 120/2018, and enhance the maintenance amount of petitioner no. 1, and grant the maintenance to the petitioner no. 2, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the marriage between petitioner no. 1 and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2013 at Village Laduva, Khutipara, Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur (C.G.) as per caste rituals, and out of the said wedlock, one son, Manuvel Toppo, was born. It was alleged that after about one year of marriage, the respondent started subjecting petitioner no. 1 to cruelty and eventually left her at her parental house. As the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves, they filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The respondent filed his reply denying the allegations. After framing issues and recording evidence, the learned Family Court, by order dated 08.01.2021, partly allowed the application, granting Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to petitioner no. 1 and rejecting the claim of petitioner no. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner no. 1 has preferred this criminal revision seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded to her and also grant of maintenance for petitioner no. 2, on the grounds that the impugned order is partly illegal, 3 erroneous, and contrary to law. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and is therefore unsustainable in law. It is contended that the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the petitioners and has passed the order without considering the actual financial needs and circumstances of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month awarded to petitioner no. 1 is grossly inadequate and on the lower side, considering the rising cost of living and the respondent’s financial capacity, and therefore deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel also submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent forcibly took custody of petitioner no. 2, the minor child, from petitioner no. 1, and despite this fact being brought to the notice of the Family Court, no maintenance was granted for petitioner no. 2, which is completely erroneous and against the settled principles of law. It is further argued that both petitioners are unable to maintain themselves and are fully dependent on the respondent, who has sufficient means to provide for their livelihood. Hence, the impugned order, being arbitrary and unjust, is liable to be set aside, and the maintenance amount deserves to be suitably enhanced for petitioner no. 1, along with appropriate maintenance for petitioner no. 2. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the 4 pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after carefully considering the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances of the case, rightly passed the order dated 08.01.2021, partly allowing the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Family Court correctly appreciated that the marriage between petitioner no. 1 and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2013, and out of the said wedlock, one son, Manuvel Toppo, was born. Upon examining the evidence, the court found that petitioner no. 1 had established sufficient grounds to live separately and was entitled to maintenance, while petitioner no. 2 was in the custody of the respondent during the proceedings and, therefore, not entitled to separate maintenance. Based on the financial status of the respondent and the evidence presented, the learned Family Court awarded a reasonable sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to petitioner no. 1, which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The order reflects due application of mind, proper appreciation of evidence, and adherence to legal principles under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan