1 CGHC010250352026 2026:CGHC:27940 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 839 of 2026 Anil Kumar Soni S/o. Shri Chandramohan Soni, Aged About 48 Years R/o. Milan Chowk, House No. 104, Sharda Para, Camp-2, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Jhilmil Soni D/o. Anil Kumar Soni, Aged About 17 Years (Minor) Through Arti Soni (Mother) D/o. Late Harilal, R/o. Above Vijay Jewellers, Ghadi Chowk, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “(a) Call for the record of the proceedings. (b) Set aside the impugned Order dated 30.4.2026 (ANNEXURE-A/1) passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1172/2023, in the interest of justice. (c) Pass any other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the present facts ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.08 11:08:00 +0530 2 and circumstance of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and Arti Soni was solemnized on 26.01.2000. Out of the said wedlock, three daughters were born, namely Purnima Soni, Riya Soni, and Jhilmil Soni. The respondent is the third daughter of the applicant. The marriage between the applicant and Arti Soni was dissolved by a judgment and decree dated 16.02.2023. Since the year 2006, both parties had been living separately. The eldest daughter, namely Purnima Soni, has been residing with the applicant, whereas the other two daughters, namely Riya Soni and the aespondent, Jhilmil Soni, have been residing with their mother. The applicant is taking care of his eldest daughter as well as his aged parents. The respondent, through her mother, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month on the ground that she is dependent upon her mother and maternal uncle and is unable to maintain herself. It was further stated that the respondent is a State-level boxing athlete and requires a special diet for her training, which she is unable to afford. Accordingly, she prayed for grant of maintenance. 4. The Applicant filed his reply stating that, in the decree of divorce passed on the basis of mutual consent, it was mutually agreed between the parties that the eldest daughter would remain in the custody of the Applicant, while the other two daughters would remain with their mother, who would take care of them. The applicant further submitted that he is engaged in the business of artificial jewellery and earns only about Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month, out of which he has to maintain his eldest daughter as well as his aged parents. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court, 3 vide the impugned order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1172/2023, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent herein. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the facts and law. He contends that the learned Family Court passed the impugned order without properly appreciating the evidence and material available on record. He also submits that the learned Family Court passed the impugned order contrary to the facts, evidence, and documents available on record, and as such, the same is erroneous and unsustainable in law. Learned Family Court passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner, with utter disregard to the provisions of law and without proper application of its judicial mind. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate the judgment and decree of divorce passed in favour of the applicant, wherein the respondent’s mother herself admitted that she did not wish to reside with the applicant, had no objection to the grant of a decree of divorce, and agreed that she would maintain the daughters. He further submits that the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is excessive and disproportionate to the financial capacity of the applicant. A similar amount of maintenance has also been awarded to another daughter in separate proceedings, making the total maintenance liability Rs. 16,000/- per month, which the applicant is unable to bear. The applicant is already maintaining his eldest daughter as well as his aged parents, and therefore, the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Learned Family Court is highly excessive. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment 4 of the learned Family Court. 8. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondent. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded the maintenance of Rs. 8000/- to the respondent. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek