1 2026:CGHC:7130 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1025 of 2024 1 - Smt. Neha Sharma W/o Shri Hani Sharma, Aged About 28 Years R/o Presently Ward No.07, Near The Raja Sagar Talab, Pathariya, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Ishita Sharma D/o Hani Sharma, Aged About 3 Years 06 Months, Minor Through Mother Smt. Neha Sharma, R/o Presently Ward No.07, Near The Raja Sagar Talab, Pathariya, District-Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Dhairyashil Sharma S/o Hani Sharma, Aged About 6 Months, Minor Through Mother Smt. Neha Sharma, R/o Presently Ward No.07, Near The Raja Sagar Talab, Pathariya, District-Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Hani Sharma S/o Haldhar Prasad Sharma, Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No.12, Gayatri Nagar In Front Of Ganga Hospital Belsari Naka Takhatpur, P.O.- Takhatpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to enhance the 2 maintenance amount for applicant no.02 and 03 and set-aside the impugned order dated 09/07/2024 (ANNEXURE A/01) passed by the Family court Mungeli in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 260/2023 in respect of the applicant no.01 and allowed the application u/s 125 of criminal procedure code, filed by the applicants in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between applicant No. 01 and the respondent–husband, Hani Sharma, was solemnized on 27.06.2017 at Village Pathriya, District Mungeli (C.G.) according to Hindu rites and rituals, and out of the wedlock applicant Nos. 02 and 03 were born, after the marriage, applicant No. 01 resided at the matrimonial home, where she was allegedly subjected to frequent abuse, assault and cruelty on account of unlawful demand of dowry, and it is further alleged that the respondent, under the influence of liquor, assaulted her even during pregnancy and that on 24.06.2022 and 10.07.2022 she was again assaulted and ultimately driven out from the matrimonial house, thereafter, on 03.08.2022 the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Mungeli seeking maintenance on the ground that applicant No. 01 had no independent source of income and the respondent had illicit relations with another woman, whereas the respondent denied the allegations and contended that applicant No. 01 was residing separately without sufÏcient cause, upon appreciation of evidence, 3 the learned Family Court granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month each to applicant Nos. 02 and 03 and declined maintenance to applicant No. 01. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, inasmuch as the learned court failed to consider that the applicants have no independent source of income and erroneously held that applicant No. 01 was residing separately without sufÏcient cause, without appreciating that she was subjected to cruelty, assault and unlawful demand of dowry by the respondent and his family members, which allegations the respondent failed to rebut. It is further submitted that during counselling proceedings applicant No. 01 had expressed her willingness to reside with the respondent, but the respondent neither agreed to keep her nor made any effort to bring her back, and that applicant No. 01 had also lodged a report at Police Station Pathariya, on the basis of which an offence under Section 498-A IPC was registered and charge-sheet has been filed and the criminal trial is still pending. It is additionally contended that the learned court ignored the fact that the respondent is in government service and possesses other sources of income including rental and agricultural income, whereas applicant No. 01 is unemployed and unable to maintain herself as well as Applicant Nos. 02 and 03, and therefore the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month each awarded to applicant Nos. 02 and 03 is wholly 4 inadequate and on the lower side considering the prevailing cost of living. 4. 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, Mungeli, District Mungeli, (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, Mungeli, upon due 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, whereby maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month each has been granted to applicant Nos. 02 and 03, keeping in view their status, needs and the responsibility of the respondent–father, while the claim of applicant No. 01 for maintenance has been declined on the ground that she was found to be residing separately without sufÏcient cause, thus, the impugned order reflects proper application of judicial mind. 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 5 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