1 2025:CGHC:8866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 244 of 2025 1 - Vikas Budek S/o Late Balakram Budek Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Karchundi, Tahsil-Basna At Present Address Village- Turturiya, Post-Bafra, P.S. And Tahsil-Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Dileshwari Budek W/o Vikas Budek Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Virendra Nagar, Saraipali, Tahsil-Saraipali, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Pragya D/o Vikas Budek Aged About 9 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Dileshwari Budek, R/o Ward No. 2, Virendra Nagar, Saraipali, Tahsil-Saraipali, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 20/02/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025, an application for condonation of delay. 2 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned therein, I am inclined to allow I.A. No. 02/2025 and the delay of 106 days is hereby condoned. 3. The present Criminal Revision is filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 438 and Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 25.07.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 53/2023 by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.) whereby directed the applicant to pay Rs. 8000/- per month to the non-applicants towards their maintenance. 4. Brief facts of the case is that the marriage of the applicant and respondent was performed in the month of May, 2013 according to Hindu rites and rituals and after marriage, she came in the house of applicant for performing matrimonial obligations and out of their wedlock, the respondent no. 2 was born on 26.11.2014. During pregnancy the respondent no. 1 went to her paternal house in March, 2014 thereafter the applicant used to visit her at her paternal house, but later after some dispute he stopped visiting respondent no. 1 and the entire expenses of delivery and other medical expenditure while respondent no. 2 was born was borne by the family members of respondent no.1. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the manner in which maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.c. is to be 3 assessed, was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its celebrated judgment in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. He also placed his reliance upon the Aditi @ Mithi Vs. Jitesh Sharma in CRA No. 3446 of 2023 arising out of SLP (Cr.) No. 11954 of 2023. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of record shows that the applicant is working as a Forest Guard and is earning Rs. 31,652/- per month. The learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, Link Court Saraipali (C.G.) vide its order dated 25.07.2024 has granted maintenance of Rs. 4000/- to respondent no. 1 (wife) and Rs. 4000/- to respondent no. 2 (daughter), in total Rs. 8000/-. 8. It is crystal clear that respondent no. 1 is legally wedded wife of the applicant and respondent no. 2 is minor daughter of the applicant who is aged about 9 years who are unable to maintain themselves. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aditi @ Mithi Vs. Jitesh Sharma (supra) in para 13 has stated: “13. A perusal of the order passed by the High Court shows that the amount of maintenance awarded to the appellant was reduced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 7,500/- per month, merely noticing that earlier, the respondent was in business. However, at that point in time he was in debt and in financial distress, hence, not able to pay huge amount of maintenance to the minor 4 daughter. The respondent is not respondent is not represented before this Court to justify the stand taken by him before the High Court. The Family Court had passed a detailed order giving reasons.” 10. So far as the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in is concerned, the husband was running a business and at that point of time he was in debt and in financial distress, but in the present case the applicant/husband is a government servant working as a Forest Guard and is withdrawing a fixed salary of Rs. 31,652/- per month, therefore, the facts of the case upon which the counsel for the applicant is relying is totally different from the facts of the present case. 11. 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, irrespective of the decree of dissolution of marriage. 12. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund in Misc. Criminal Case No. 53/2023. 5 13. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is dismissed on merits. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima