1 2026:CGHC:7413 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1234 of 2024 1 - Smt. Shivani Gupta W/o Pawan Kumar Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o New Adarsh Nagar, Zone 3, Street No. 07, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. 2 - Aadya Soni D/o Pawan Kumar Gupta Aged About 2 Years (Minor) Through Its Mother Smt. Shivani Gupta, R/o New Adarsh Nagar, Zone 3, Street No. 07, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. ... Applicants versus Pawan Gupta S/o Vinay Kumar Gupta Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. 498, Sindhya Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Veethika Choubey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shayon Kar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to order as to set- aside impugned order dated 05/10/2024 (Annexure A-1), by RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 which the claim of the maintenance has been rejected by allowing Rs. 20,000 per month in the favor of revisioner no. 1 and enhance the maintenance amount from Rs. 6000 per month as passed by the Court below to Rs. 20,000 per month from date of application as passed relating to revisioner no. 2 by allowing this application in the ends of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 25.11.2015 at Arya Samaj Temple, Sector-6, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.), after which applicant No.1 started residing in her matrimonial home with the respondent and his family. Out of the wedlock, applicant No.2 was born on 04.09.2016. It is alleged that during the pregnancy as well as after the birth of the child, the respondent, under the influence of liquor, used to assault applicant No.1, abuse her and her family members, and subject her to physical and mental cruelty, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents. Despite efforts made by applicant No.1 and her parents to restore matrimonial harmony, the respondent allegedly continued his cruel conduct and, on 03.02.2018, assaulted applicant No.1, leading to her medical treatment, and also lodged a report at the police station to evade liability. It is further stated that even after the applicants started residing separately, the respondent continued to create nuisance and failed to provide maintenance, though he is employed in BSP and earning approximately Rs.60,000/- per 3 month, while the father of applicant No.1 is a retired employee with no sufÏcient source of income. Consequently, the applicants filed an application seeking maintenance before the learned Family Court, Durg, however, by order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the Court of the 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, the claim of applicant No.1 was dismissed and maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month was awarded only to applicant No.2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary and without proper application of judicial mind, and therefore deserves to be quashed. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the true object and spirit of Section 125 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as applicant No.1 was compelled to reside separately due to continuous physical assault, mental cruelty and abnormal conduct of the respondent, which fact is duly supported by the evidence on record. It is further submitted that the court below ignored the material evidence showing that applicant No.1 had made sincere efforts to preserve her matrimonial life but was ultimately forced to take shelter at her parental home along with applicant No.2, and that the respondent had even assaulted her there, for which a report was lodged. Learned counsel argues that the respondent, being the legally wedded husband and father, is bound to maintain the applicants and is employed in Bhilai Steel Plant drawing substantial salary and service benefits; yet the learned Family Court erred in dismissing the maintenance claim of 4 applicant No.1 and awarding a meagre sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to applicant No.2, which is wholly insufÏcient for their sustenance, education, medical care and basic needs. It is also contended that the learned Court failed to grant maintenance from the date of application in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the impugned order is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants and supports the impugned order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a well- reasoned and lawful order dated 05.10.2024. The learned court, after due evaluation of the rival submissions and the financial status of the parties, correctly exercised its judicial discretion in dismissing the maintenance claim of applicant No.1 and in awarding a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to applicant No.2, keeping in view the needs of the minor child and the proved means of the respondent. The impugned order thus reflects proper application of mind, sound 5 reasoning and conformity with the settled principles governing proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified 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