1 2025:CGHC:37939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 215 of 2022 1 - Smt. Deepa Yadu W/o Shri Jitesh Kumar Yadu Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Ahiwara, Tehsil Dhamdha And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Aryan Yadu S/o Jitesh Kumar Yadu Aged About 6 Years Applicant No. 2 Throuhg Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Deepa Yadu Wife Of Jitesh Kumar Yadu Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 1 Ahiwara, Tehsil Dhamdha And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Jitesh Kumar Yadu S/o Shri Ramnarayan Yadu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Tarri Post Nayapara Tehsil Rajim, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel the applicants. Also heard Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 modify the impugned order dated 23.11.2021 and may kindly be pleased to enhance the maintenance amount to the applicant no. 2 and kindly pass an order of maintenance to the applicant no.1 also in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance, alleging that the marriage between Applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 16.05.2015 as per local customs and that, soon after marriage, the respondent subjected Applicant No. 1 to harassment and physical assault for trivial reasons and willfully neglected to maintain her and the child. The applicants sought maintenance of ₹12,500/- per month. The respondent entered appearance and denied all allegations. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application, granting maintenance only to Applicant No. 2 (the child) and rejecting the claim of Applicant No. 1, 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 bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, and therefore liable to be modified; the learned court below failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the applicant, which clearly established that the respondent subjected her to cruelty and compelled her to live separately. Despite the respondent earning a handsome salary and having no other 3 liabilities, the court below awarded an unduly low amount of maintenance to Applicant No. 2 and, without assigning sufficient reasons, rejected the claim of Applicant No. 1. The court further ignored the fact that Applicant No. 1 has no independent source of income and failed to apply the settled principle that dependents are ordinarily entitled to around 50% of the respondent’s income for their sustenance. The order also lacks consideration of future obligations, including educational and marriage expenses of the minor child, and overlooks that the respondent has never provided maintenance or care since the birth of Applicant No. 2. In view of the prevailing cost of living, the maintenance awarded is grossly inadequate and warrants enhancement. 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 First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District- Durg, (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 the allegations of harassment and willful neglect raised by Applicant No. 1 were not duly proved and that she failed to establish her inability to maintain 4 herself, while the respondent had effectively rebutted the claims made against him. However, taking into account the welfare and sustenance of the minor child (Applicant No. 2), the Court, in a balanced and reasoned manner, partly allowed the application by awarding maintenance exclusively to the child and rejecting the claim of Applicant No. 1. The impugned order, being based on proper appreciation of facts and settled legal principles, is fair, reasonable. 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 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