1 2026:CGHC:1045 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 120 of 2023 Nyaymurti Lahre S/o Late Shri Nanhuram Lahre Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Santosh Medical, Lalbagh Ground, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh Present Address Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, P.S. City Kotwali, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt Meena Lahre W/o Nyaymurti Lahre Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Avantika Colony, G-13, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Pranjal Lahre D/o Nyaymurti Lahre Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Res No.1 Smt. Meena Lahre (Mother), R/o Village Avantika Colony, G-13, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3. Ku. Aakansha Lahre D/o Nyaymurti Lahre Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Res No.1 Smt. Meena Lahre (Mother), R/o Village Avantika Colony, G-13, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 4. Ku. Anaya Lahre D/o Nyaymurti Lahre Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Res No.1 Smt. Meena Lahre (Mother), R/o Village Avantika Colony, G-13, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate.. For Respondents : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.01.08 11:04:06 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been ;led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure R-1), passed by Judge, Family Court, Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.), in M.J.C. No. 79/2021, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein ;led a revision and had earlier ;led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance, along with an application for interim maintenance, before the Family Court against the applicant, alleging that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and that the other respondents are his daughters. It was alleged that the applicant had deserted the respondents, was not taking care of them, and had subjected them to cruelty. On these allegations, the application was ;led before the trial Court. 4. Upon being served with notice of the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the applicant entered appearance before the Family Court and contested the application, inter alia, on the ground that respondent No.1 is of a quarrelsome nature and that she used to state that she had married the applicant only for his government job and was not interested 3 in living with him. It was further contended that she used to doubt the applicant all the time regarding alleged extramarital aBairs. The applicant further submitted that respondent No.1 is capable of earning her livelihood and that the present applicant has his own family responsibilities, including taking care of his mother and his nephew, who is presently pursuing college education. It was also submitted that, in addition to the above, the applicant is already paying a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month to respondent No.1 in compliance with the order passed in the Domestic Violence case ;led by her. 5. It was further submitted that the respondents are residing in the government accommodation allotted to the applicant, whereas the applicant himself is residing in a rented house. He is also paying the school fees of the children (respondent Nos. 2 to 4) and bearing their other expenses. Therefore, due to these ;nancial liabilities, the applicant is not in a position to pay any further maintenance to the respondents. 6. However, the Family Court, after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the record, passed the order dated 20.12.2022, thereby granting maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month (Rs. 2,000/- each to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Rs. 1,000/- to respondent No. 4) in favour of the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is bad in law and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The order passed by the learned trial Court is not a well-reasoned order and is baseless, arbitrary, and contrary to law. He submits that the applicant is already paying a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month to respondent No.1 in compliance with the court order passed in the Domestic Violence case ;led by respondent No.1. He also submits that the applicant is bearing all the expenses of his daughters, which include school fees of Rs. 5,274/- per month, auto fees 4 of Rs. 3,000/- per month, books and notebooks amounting to Rs. 18,000/-, admission fees of Rs. 1,310/-, school dress expenses of Rs. 3,260/-, and school bags and shoes costing Rs. 4,800/-. The applicant is also paying the premium of insurance policies taken to secure the future of his daughters, amounting to Rs. 3,891/-. Apart from the above expenses, the applicant takes proper care of his daughters, takes them out for meals of their choice, and provides them with pocket money whenever required. He further submits that the applicant himself is residing in a rented house and paying rent of Rs. 4,000/- per month, whereas the respondents are residing in the government accommodation allotted to the applicant. He also incurs other expenses such as Rs. 3,500/- per month towards food, Rs. 10,000/- towards petrol, and Rs. 5,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses. The applicant is also required to take care of his mother and his late brother’s son, who is presently a student and is not in a position to meet his own expenses. The Family Court has wrongly assessed the income of the applicant and has passed an excessive and unreasonable amount of maintenance. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 5 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek