1 CGHC010194102025 2026:CGHC:35599 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 633 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sulekha Tripathi W/o Shri Durgesh Prasad Tripathi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Tehsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rashi @ Kasvi Tripathi (Minor) D/o Durgesh Prasad Tripathi Aged About 3 Years Through Mother Sulekha Tripathi, R/o Village And Tehsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Durgesh Prasad Tripathi S/o Vinay Tripathi Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Tirmau, Baarua, Tehsil Rajapur, District Chitrakut U.P. Presently Residing At M.G. Road, In Front Of Bullet Showroom Ambikapur, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set-aside the order dated order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Judge, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Circuit Family Court, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G) presided by Shri Rakesh Bihari Ghore in Miscellaneous Criminal Case no. 07/2025 passed against applicant no. 1 and enhance the maintenance amount passed in favour of applicant no.2 and it is most humbly prayed that Rs. 30,000.00 per month maintenance amount from date of application may kindly be granted to the applicants looking to the income and status of the non-applicant in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant No.1 and the respondent/non-applicant was solemnized on 12.02.2020 at Village Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, in accordance with Hindu rites, customs and social and religious ceremonies. After the marriage, applicant No.1 joined the company of the respondent and started residing with him at Village Tiramou in discharge of their matrimonial obligations. Thereafter, for about one month, the parties resided together and subsequently shifted to a rented accommodation situated at Ward No.55, Mahapaur Para, Subhash Nagar, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, where they resided together for about six months. It is the case of the applicants that during the subsistence of the matrimonial relationship, the respondent started subjecting applicant No.1 to physical and mental cruelty by regularly abusing, harassing and assaulting her on 3 the ground that she had brought insu@cient articles and jewellery in dowry and had not brought a four-wheeler. From the said wedlock, a female child, namely, Rashi Tripathi/Kasvi Tripathi, applicant No.2, was born on 21.01.2021 at Sankalp Hospital, Ambikapur. After the birth of the daughter, when applicant No.1 returned to her matrimonial home along with the child, the respondent and his family members allegedly taunted and harassed her on account of the birth of a female child, abused her in 7lthy and obscene language, assaulted her and threw her out of the matrimonial house. It is further alleged that whenever applicant No.1 raised objection to such conduct, she was threatened with dire consequences, including being killed, and was ultimately compelled to leave her matrimonial home. Consequently, applicant No.1, along with applicant No.2, started residing at her parental house at Village Pathalgaon, whereas the respondent and his family members refused to take her back and failed to provide for her and the minor child. In the aforesaid circumstances, applicant No.1 instituted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance for herself and applicant No.2, a copy whereof was 7led as Annexure A-2. It was speci7cally pleaded therein that the respondent is a Hindu priest and is possessed of approximately 48 acres of agricultural land and earns an income of about Rs.10,00,000/- per annum, and therefore, is 7nancially capable of maintaining the applicants. 3. Upon receipt of notice, the respondent entered appearance before the learned Family Court and 7led his reply, denying the allegations 4 and contentions raised by the applicants. The respondent also instituted proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. 4. Thereafter, the learned Family Court recorded the evidence adduced by both the parties and, upon consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By order dated 23.04.2025, the learned Family Court rejected the claim for maintenance made by applicant No.1 and awarded only a meagre amount of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2. Being aggrieved by the rejection of her claim for maintenance and being dissatis7ed with the inadequate amount awarded in favour of the minor daughter, the applicant No.1 has preferred the present revision petition seeking appropriate enhancement/grant of maintenance in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is perverse, contrary to the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the parties, and is therefore unsustainable in law. She further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has rejected the claim of applicant No.1 without appreciating the material facts, pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record. She also submits that the learned Family Court has failed to consider that applicant No.1 has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain 5 herself, whereas the respondent/non-applicant has su@cient means and adequate income to maintain the applicants. The evidence and documents produced in support of the applicants’ claim have not been properly appreciated and have been erroneously interpreted against them. She further submits that applicant No.1 was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on account of the conduct and ill-treatment of the respondent and his family members and, despite having no su@cient means of livelihood, she has been residing separately along with the minor daughter. The learned Family Court has failed to consider the applicants’ right to live with dignity and maintain a standard of living commensurate with that of the respondent and has rejected the claim of applicant No.1 without assigning cogent and legally sustainable reasons and the learned Family Court has further failed to properly appreciate the settled legal position that mere education or earning capacity of a wife, by itself, cannot be a ground to deny maintenance when she is unable to adequately maintain herself, and the determinative consideration is whether she has su@cient independent means to maintain herself and whether the husband has the 7nancial capacity to provide maintenance. She also submits that the learned Family Court has also awarded only a meagre amount of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2, which is wholly inadequate having regard to the present cost of living, educational, medical and other necessary expenses of the minor child, therefore, the impugned order, insofar as it rejects the claim of applicant No.1 and awards an inadequate amount of maintenance to applicant No.2, suDers 6 from non-consideration of material evidence and relevant circumstances and has resulted in grave injustice to the applicants, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Circuit Family Court, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, (C.G.). 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the rival contentions, the oral and documentary evidence adduced during the course of proceedings, and the material available on record, has passed the order after properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court has carefully examined the claim raised by applicant No.1 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has also considered the defence taken by the respondent/non-applicant. Upon appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the learned Family Court found that applicant No.1 had failed to establish the necessary grounds and circumstances so as to entitle her to claim maintenance from the respondent in the manner prayed for, and accordingly rejected her claim. At the same time, keeping in view the fact that applicant No.2 is the minor daughter born out of the wedlock and is residing with applicant No.1, the learned Family Court has rightly recognized 7 her entitlement to maintenance and awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month in her favour. The impugned order thus reEects due application of mind to the material facts, pleadings and evidence available on record, and the 7ndings recorded by the learned Family Court cannot be said to be based on any irrelevant consideration or contrary to the evidence. The learned Family Court has exercised its jurisdiction within the parameters of law and has arrived at its conclusion upon appreciation of the evidence available before it. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 7nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in7rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a certi7ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan