1 2025:CGHC:37941 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 190 of 2022 Shubham Sinha @ Sukhram Sinha S/o Rikhiram Sinha, Aged About 39 Years Caste Kalar, R/o. Dhamtari, Gokulpur, Bramha Chowk, Infront Of School, Jhankar Construct Dhamtari, P.S. Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Mohrenga, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Jaishree Sinha W/o Shubham Sinha @ Sukhram Sinha, Aged About 41 Years Caste Teli, R/o Pandit Deendayal Upadhya Ward No. 19, Maa Kali Cjhowk, Anupma Talkies Road, Jagdapur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Shruti Sinha, D/o Shubham Sinha @ Sukhram Sinha, Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Legal Representative Mother Smt. Jaishree Sinha, R/o Pandit Deendayal Upadhya Ward No. 19, Maa Kali Cjhowk, Anupma Talkies Road, Jagdapur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Shreya Sinha, D/o Shubham Sinha @ Sukhram Sinha, Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Legal Representative Mother Smt. Jaishree Sinha, R/o Pandit Deendayal Upadhya Ward No. 19, Maa Kali Cjhowk, Anupma Talkies Road, Jagdapur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 1. Heard Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice equity and good conscience that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 23-11-2021 (Annexure A-1) or also be pleased to make an order to modified the order Annexure A-1, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that respondent No. 1, along with her two minor daughters (respondents No. 2 and 3), filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance from the applicant/husband. It was pleaded that their marriage was solemnized on 25.02.2011, and thereafter they resided together at Jagdalpur, where two daughters were born out of the wedlock. It was alleged that the applicant subjected respondent No. 1 to cruelty during and after her pregnancies, threatened to oust her for not bearing a male child, sold her house for ₹14,00,000/- without consent, and disputes arose leading to separation. It was further pleaded that the applicant works as a Supervisor in a construction company earning ₹72,000/- to ₹80,000/- per month and has immovable properties, whereas she 3 has no sufficient means to maintain herself and the children; hence, she claimed ₹30,000/- per month as maintenance. The applicant denied all allegations, contending that respondent No. 1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home, restrained him from meeting the children, is educated, employed in a private company earning ₹15,000/- per month, and that her parents also receive pension. He asserted that he earns only ₹10,000/- per month and sought dismissal of the application. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Family Court, vide judgment dated 23.11.2021, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of ₹4,500/- per month to Respondent No. 1 and ₹3,000/- per month each to respondents No. 2 and 3, totalling ₹10,500/- per month, against which the present revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 23.11.2021 is arbitrary, illegal, and suffers from perversity in procedure, it is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court, while awarding excessive maintenance, erroneously relied upon the counseling proceedings (Ex. P-6) and presumed that the applicant had agreed to pay ₹8,000/- per month, which finding is baseless and contrary to the contents of the said document. The Court, despite recording that the applicant’s income is only ₹16,000/- per month, mechanically awarded maintenance of ₹10,500/- without considering his obligation to maintain himself and his aged parents, thereby leaving him with insufficient means of subsistence. The impugned order also fails to apply the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 4 2 SCC 324 regarding assessment of income and determination of quantum of maintenance. Further, the Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 is voluntarily living separately and has herself refused to reside with the applicant, which disentitles her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court’s failure to consider these aspects renders the order arbitrary and unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rightly concluded that respondent No. 1, along with her minor daughters, had been left without sufficient means of maintenance, whereas the applicant, being gainfully employed, possessed the financial capacity to provide for them. The Court, while assessing the standard of living and reasonable needs of the respondents, as well as the income and liabilities of the applicant, arrived at a just and balanced conclusion by awarding maintenance of ₹4,500/- per month to respondent No. 1 and ₹3,000/- per month each to respondents No. 2 and 3. The quantum so determined is neither excessive nor arbitrary and is well within the principles laid down under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the settled law on 5 maintenance, ensuring sustenance of the wife and minor children without imposing undue hardship upon the applicant. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan