1 CGHC010022202025 2026:CGHC:34265 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 94 of 2025 1. Smt. Shobhna Singh W/o Shri Nitesh Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. - 06, Koriya Colliery, District – Manendragarh – Chirimiri - Bharatpur (C.G.) 2. Rajveer Singh S/o Shri Nitesh Singh Aged About 4 Years (Minor Through Her Mother Shobhna Singh, W/o- Shri Nitesh Singh) R/o Ward No.- 06, Koriya Colliery, District- Manendragarh – Chirimiri - Bharatpur (C.G.) 3. Riyansh Singh S/o Shri Nitesh Singh Aged About 2 Years (Minor Through Her Mother Shobhna Singh, W/o- Shri Nitesh Singh) R/o Ward No.- 06, Koriya Colliery, District – Manendragarh – Chirimiri - Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Nitesh Singh S/o Shri Murali Manohar Singh, Aged About 37 Years Occupation - Trackment In Railway Department, R/o- Venkat Ward, Shastri Colony, Dr. Subbarao Gali, Katni (M.P.) Presently R/o- Near Mummu Medical Stores, Near Dr. Kidwai, Roshan Nagar, P.S.- N.K.J., Katni, Tehsil And District - Katni (M.P.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.06 14:39:28 +0530 2 applicants. Also heard Mr. Shivam Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present petition has been =led by the applicants seeking following prayer:- “(i) It is therefore most respectfully prayed that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the M.Cr.C. No. 20/2023 from the court below. (ii) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision and enhanced the maintenance amount in favour of appellant as prayed/claimed by them in their maintenance application u/s-125 of Cr.P.C. *led before learned court below. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems *t and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Facts of the case are that the brief facts of the case are that the applicant No. 1 =led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month, stating that she was married to the respondent on 01.02.2017 according to Hindu customs at Punjabi Marriage Hall, Katni. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born, who are presently residing with applicant No. 1. It was further stated that, after the marriage, the respondent behaved well with applicant No. 1 only for a few days. Thereafter, the respondent, along with his mother and sisters-in-law (Jethani and Nanad), started harassing her by demanding dowry. Applicant No. 1 tolerated everything in the hope that the respondent’s behaviour would change, but there was no improvement. It was alleged that they started harassing her regarding 3 food and other household matters, compelled her to perform all the household work, and physically assaulted her. The respondent also pressurized her to bring Rs. 2,00,000/- from her parental home for the construction of a house and threatened that if she failed to bring the money, he would not keep her with him. The applicant No. 1 informed her father about the demand, but due to his poor =nancial condition, he was unable to arrange the said amount. It was further stated that, when applicant No. 1 became pregnant for the =rst time, her in-laws asked her to undergo an abortion. During her second pregnancy, her in-laws continuously abused and harassed her on the issue of dowry. When the harassment became unbearable, on 24.06.2020 at about 9:00 p.m., at the instigation of his family members, the respondent assaulted applicant No. 1 without any reason. Consequently, she lodged a report on 27.06.2020 at Police Station New Katni. Even after the report, the respondent continued to assault her. She informed her parental family, who attempted to persuade the respondent, but he refused to keep her with him. Thereafter, on 03.07.2020, applicant No. 1, along with her mother, reported the incident at Katni and also submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Katni. Thereafter, applicant No. 1 returned to her parental home at Korea Colliery along with her children, where they have been residing ever since. All her clothes, jewellery, and other articles given at the time of marriage remained in her matrimonial home, and the respondent refused to return the same. 4. It was further stated that, during her stay at her parental home, the respondent neither enquired about her or the children nor made any arrangement for their maintenance. Applicant No. 1 had earlier =led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Baikunthpur. However, considering the future of the children, the matter 4 was compromised, and she returned to her matrimonial home at Katni. Even after residing with the respondent for about one year thereafter, there was no change in his behaviour. He remained absent from the house for several days, stopped providing food and other necessities, and threatened to kill her. When the threats became frequent, her parents and brother came to Katni, stayed with her for about a week, arranged food and other necessities, and looked after her. However, the respondent and his family members continued conspiring to implicate her in a false case. Consequently, apprehending danger to her life and safety, applicant No. 1 returned to her parental home along with her children. It was also stated that applicant No. 1 is unemployed and has no independent source of income. The respondent is working as a Trackman in the Railway Department. Apart from his employment, he owns a house at Katni which has been let out on rent. It was alleged that the respondent earns Rs. 60,000/- per month as salary and Rs. 30,000/- per month as rental income, thereby earning approximately Rs. 90,000/- per month. Accordingly, applicant No. 1 claimed maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month. 5. By =ling his reply to the maintenance application, the respondent denied all the allegations made therein. He stated that applicant No. 1 is a free- thinking woman who did not wish to reside in a joint family. In order to maintain peace and ensure a happy married life, the respondent started residing with applicant No. 1 in a separate rented accommodation at her insistence. It was further stated that, even thereafter, applicant No. 1 insisted that the respondent should neither meet nor speak to his family members. Owing to such unreasonable insistence, she left the matrimonial home without any suDcient cause. The respondent further stated that he had obtained a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the Railway 5 Society, Kota for construction of a house, towards which a monthly instalment of Rs. 6,843/- was deducted from his salary. Thereafter, he obtained another loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the Railway Society, Jabalpur, carrying a monthly instalment of Rs. 9,688/-, which has since been fully repaid, although the construction of the house is still incomplete. It was also stated that, after the death of his father, the respondent borrowed Rs. 2,50,000/- from HDFC Financial Services for performing the last rites of his father, towards which an amount of Rs. 5,840/- is deducted every month. The respondent speci=cally denied having demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- for construction of the house or having subjected applicant No. 1 to any physical or mental cruelty. He also denied the allegations regarding abortion and dowry harassment. 6. It was further stated that, in the earlier proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., after intervention by the Court, applicant No. 1 agreed to resume cohabitation, and accordingly the respondent took her back to Katni in November, 2021. However, according to him, there was no change in her behaviour, and she started threatening him on a daily basis with false dowry harassment cases. The respondent further stated that applicant No. 1 was unwilling to discharge her matrimonial obligations and left the matrimonial home after taking away her clothes, jewellery, and other belongings without informing him. According to him, the complaints lodged by applicant No. 1 were false and intended solely to harass him. He further submitted that he had already submitted a written complaint to Police Station Roshan Nagar, N.K.J., stating that applicant No. 1 was threatening to implicate him in false criminal cases. The respondent also stated that applicant No. 1 is a healthy woman capable of maintaining herself. He is working as a Trackman in the Railway Department and earns approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month, out of which Rs. 12,400/- is 6 deducted towards loan repayments, leaving a net salary of Rs. 27,522/-, from which a further deduction of Rs. 5,840/- is made towards bank loan repayment. It was further stated that applicant No. 1 is deliberately residing at her parental home despite the respondent’s willingness to keep and maintain her with dignity. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the maintenance application. 7. After framing the aforesaid issues, applicant No. 1 examined herself and Shani Singh in support of her case, whereas the respondent examined himself before the trial Court. Both the parties also =led aDdavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Applicant No. 1 further produced documentary evidence in support of her case, which was taken on record and duly exhibited before the learned Court below. However, the respondent did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the averments made in his reply. 8. Thereafter, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order and awarded maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month each to applicant Nos. 2 and 3. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous, perverse, contrary to law, and against the evidence and material available on record. He also submits that while passing the impugned order, the learned Family Court placed reliance upon the deposition of the respondent, whereas the depositions of the applicants and their witnesses have not been properly considered. While deciding Issue Nos. 1 and 2, the learned Family Court below rightly held that applicant No. 1 is living separately from the respondent for suDcient cause and that she is unable to maintain herself. However, despite recording such =ndings, the learned Family Court awarded a meagre 7 amount of maintenance to the applicants, which is wholly inadequate considering the respondent’s income and =nancial capacity. He also submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that the respondent is working as a Trackman in the Railway Department and is earning a salary of about Rs. 60,000/- per month. Apart from this, there is no substantial =nancial liability upon the respondent. Therefore, the learned Family Court ought to have awarded at least Rs. 45,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicants. He submits that the learned Court Family ought to have considered that the respondent owns a residential house from which he is also earning approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month as rental income. On the other hand, applicant No. 1 is a housewife, has no independent source of income, and is entirely dependent upon the respondent for her maintenance. He submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that applicant No. 2 is studying in Class I, and expenses towards school fees, bus fees, books, uniforms, and other educational requirements amount to approximately Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per annum. In the absence of adequate =nancial support, he is unable to receive proper education. The learned Family Court further failed to consider that applicant No. 3 is also due to be admitted to Class I, and similar educational expenses will be incurred for applicant No. 3. Therefore, the maintenance awarded to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 is grossly inadequate to meet their educational and other day-to-day expenses. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that applicant No. 1 is unemployed and has no independent source of income to bear the educational and other necessary expenses of applicant Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, the maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month each awarded to them is neither just nor reasonable. 8 10. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 12. 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, partly allowed the application =led under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month each to applicant Nos. 2 and 3. 13. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the impugned order and the =ndings recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality, in=rmity, or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek