1 CGHC010159872025 2026:CGHC:34576 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 577 of 2025 1 - Smt. Nisha Raje W/o Shri Harbeer Raje Aged About 28 Years R/o 5th Battalion C.G. Armed Force, Kangoli, Qtr. No. A/16 Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Sahil Raje S/o Shri Harbeer Raje Aged About 6 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Nidha Raje W/o Shri Harbeer Raje, R/o 5th Battalion C.G. Armed Force, Kangoli, Qtr. No. A/16 Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Harbeer Raje S/o Late Patiram Raje Aged About 33 Years Constable Tradesman No. 919, R/o C/o Commandant, 5th Battalion C.G. Armed Force, Kangoli, Qtr. No. A/16 Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.), Presently Posted At B Company, C.G. Armed Force, Tumnar, District Dantewada (C.G) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06 /08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 07 days in filing the instant criminal revision. 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in Criminal M.J.C No.114/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to each of the applicants, towards maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and applicant No.2 is their minor son. The marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 11.05.2013 at Bijoli, District Gwalior (M.P.) in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, they resided together at the 5th Battalion, C.G. Armed Force, Kangoli, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), where applicant No.2 was born on 13.06.2017. According to the applicants, soon after the marriage, the respondent and his family members started subjecting applicant No.1 to physical and mental cruelty in connection with unlawful demands for dowry. It is alleged that her jewellery was taken away and sold without her consent and, despite payment of about Rs.4,00,000/- by her father in instalments, the harassment continued. On 17.02.2023, 3 the applicant No.1 was allegedly assaulted by the respondent's mother and sisters, resulting in injuries requiring hospitalization, and she was allegedly thrown out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, she lodged an NCR at Police Station Thatipur, Gwalior, and subsequently submitted a complaint before the Sakhi One Stop Centre, Jagdalpur. The applicants further pleaded that applicant No.1 is a housewife having no independent source of income and applicant No.2 is a minor child wholly dependent upon her. It is alleged that the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain them, though he is serving as a Constable Tradesman in the C.G. Armed Force and was drawing a monthly salary of approximately Rs.52,815/-. Accordingly, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month. The respondent opposed the application by denying all allegations of cruelty and dowry demand. He contended that the applicant No.1 had voluntarily left the matrimonial home after assaulting his mother and that neither he nor his family members had ever subjected her to harassment. He further asserted that he had been transferred to Village Tumnar, District Dantewada, and was providing maintenance to the applicants in accordance with the directions of his superior officers. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the application. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material placed on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, by order dated 07.01.2025, partly allowed the 4 application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month in favour of the applicants. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded, the applicants have preferred the present criminal revision seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in awarding only Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicants, which is wholly inadequate to meet their basic needs in view of the prevailing cost of living. The applicant No.1 is a housewife having no independent source of income and is solely dependent upon the respondent for her livelihood as well as that of applicant No.2, a school-going minor child, whose education, food, clothing, healthcare and other day- to-day expenses cannot reasonably be met from the meagre amount awarded. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the financial capacity of the respondent, who is a permanent government servant working as Constable Tradesman in the C.G. Armed Force and is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.52,815/-. Despite having sufficient means, the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain the applicants. The impugned order neither adequately considers his income and status nor assigns any cogent reason for awarding such a low amount of maintenance. He also submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the settled principles governing grant of maintenance, which require that the 5 wife and minor child should be enabled to live with dignity commensurate with the status of the husband. The learned Family Court has failed to exercise its discretion judiciously and, therefore, the maintenance awarded deserves to be suitably enhanced in the interest of justice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to each of the applicants, towards maintenance, holding that the relationship of husband and wife as well as father and son between the parties is undisputed. The learned Family Court accepted the case of applicant No.1 that she was living separately on account of cruelty, harassment and ill- treatment allegedly meted out to her by the respondent and his family members, and that she, being a housewife with no independent source of income, was unable to maintain herself. It was further held that applicant No.2 is a minor school-going child incapable of maintaining himself, whereas the respondent, being a Constable Tradesman in the C.G. Armed Force and drawing a regular salary, has sufficient means and is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor son. Accordingly, considering the respondent's income and the departmental deduction already 6 being made from his salary, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil