1 2026:CGHC:7127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1085 of 2024 1 - Smt. Shweta Singh W/o Shri Chandmal Singh Rajput Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Tikrapara Balod, Tehsil And District- Balod, C.G. 2 - Sarthak S/o Shri Chandmal Singh Rajput Aged About 2 Years Minor Is Being Represented Through His Legal Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Shweta Singh, W/o Shri Chandmal Singh Rajput, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Tikrapara Balod, Tehsil And District- Balod, C.G. ... Applicants versus Chandramal Singh S/o Shri Manharan Singh Rajput Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Darri, Up Tehsil Thankhamariya, District Bemetara, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. Heard Ms. Sweksha Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1, 2 namely Smt. Shweta Singh, who is the wife of the respondent, expired on 31.10.2025 during the pendency of the present revision. 3. Accordingly, the revision petition, insofar as it relates to applicant No.1, namely Smt. Shweta Singh, stands dismissed as having become infructuous. 4. The present criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the impugned by the judgment dated 08.08.2024, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Balod, District Balod (C.G.), passed in M.J.C. Case No. 128/2022, may kindly be set-aside and the application filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance amount may kindly be allowed from the date of filing of application.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants, namely applicant No.1–wife and applicant No.2–minor son of the respondent, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of maintenance, pleading that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 29.04.2018 at Village Darri, District Bemetera (C.G.), and applicant No.2 was born out of the said wedlock. It was further alleged that applicant No.1 was subjected to cruelty, harassment and dowry- related demands by the respondent and his family members, compelling her to reside separately without any independent source 3 of income, whereas the respondent is working as a driver earning about Rs.20,000/- per month and is also deriving annual income of about Rs.10,00,000/- from agricultural land. The learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 08.08.2024, declined maintenance to applicant No.1 on the ground that she was residing separately without sufÏcient cause and granted only Rs.1,500/- per month to applicant No.2, which is alleged to be unjust, arbitrary and inadequate in view of the respondent’s income and the dependency of the applicants, despite the pendency of an FIR under Section 498A IPC indicating cruelty. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed challenging the said impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in view of the death of applicant No.1 on 31.10.2025, the claim for maintenance on her behalf has become infructuous; however, the revision survives in respect of applicant No.2, the minor son, who is legally entitled to just, fair and reasonable maintenance. It is contended that the learned Family Court erred in granting only a meagre sum of Rs.1,500/- per month to applicant No.2, which is insufÏcient to meet even the basic needs of upbringing, education and day-to-day expenses of the minor child, particularly when the respondent is an earning member having sufÏcient income. It is further submitted that the impugned order suffers from perversity, arbitrariness and non- application of mind and is contrary to the settled principles governing maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh v. Neha. 4 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balod, District Balod (C.G.). 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Family Court has duly appreciated the pleadings, evidence and surrounding circumstances of the parties while passing the impugned order dated 08.08.2024. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the present proceedings applicant No.1 expired on 31.10.2025 and, therefore, the claim for maintenance insofar as it relates to applicant No.1 has rightly become infructuous. In respect of applicant No.2, the minor son of the respondent, the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the respondent’s income, obligations and the overall facts of the case, has exercised sound judicial discretion in awarding maintenance to the extent found just and proper, and no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is made out so as to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. The impugned order thus reflects proper application of mind and adherence to the settled principles governing grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order and the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, this Court is of the view that 5 the Family Court has not committed any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 12. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan