1 CGHC010085732024 2026:CGHC:34266 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 334 of 2024 1. Deverti Verma W/o Pradeep Verma, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Siltara, P.S. And Tahsil Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2. Purab S/o Pradeep Verma Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Deverti Verma, W/o Pradeep Verma, R/o Village - Ghutheli, P.S. And Tahsil - Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3. Purvi D/o Pradeep Verma, Aged 8 Months, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Deverti Verma, W/o Pradeep Verma, R/o Village - Ghutheli, P.S. And Tahsil - Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Pradeep Verma S/o Ramjharokha Verma, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Siltara, P.S. And Tahsil - Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, learned counsel appearing, for the applicants. 2. The present revision has been 8led by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is most respectfully prayed with this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application of the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.06 14:39:27 +0530 2 applicants, quash/set aside the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Court of Learned Judge family Court Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 65/2023 and enhance the maintenance amount Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of applicants, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicants 8led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Mungeli, seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the respondent, on the ground that applicant No. 1 and the respondent were married according to Hindu customs and rituals at Village Ghutheli. After the marriage, they started living together as husband and wife at Village Siltara in the family residence of the respondent. Out of the said wedlock, two children, namely applicant No. 2 and applicant No. 3, were born. It was further contended by the applicants that after the birth of applicant No. 3, applicant No. 1 was subjected to various forms of physical and mental cruelty by the respondent on account of dowry demands. It was further contended by the applicants that, at the time of marriage, the family members of applicant No. 1 had given dowry and gifts to her, but even thereafter, the respondent was not satis8ed and subjected her to cruelty and misbehaved with her on account of dowry demands. Ultimately, the respondent drove applicant No. 1 out of his house along with their children. Thereafter, without obtaining a divorce from applicant No. 1, the respondent remarried another woman. Since then, applicant No. 1 has been residing at her parental home at Village Ghutheli. It was further contended by applicant No. 1 that she is a housewife and has no source of income to maintain herself and her children, whereas the respondent is the owner of approximately 20.00 acres of agricultural land and earns an annual income of approximately Rs. 20,00,000/-. Therefore, he is 8nancially capable of paying a total amount of Rs. 3 15,000/- per month towards maintenance of the applicants. 4. The respondent 8led his reply to the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and denied the contentions of the applicants. He stated that he had never demanded dowry from the applicants nor subjected them to any mental or physical cruelty. He further stated that applicant No. 1, along with their children, had left his house of her own accord and, therefore, the applicants were not entitled to receive any maintenance. 5. The learned Family Court framed the issues and recorded the evidence adduced by both parties. After considering the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court came to the conclusion that the applicants were entitled to maintenance. Accordingly, vide the impugned order dated 15.12.2023, the learned Family Court directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No. 1, Rs. 1,000/- per month to applicant No. 2, and Rs. 1,000/- per month to applicant No. 3. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in law and on facts in failing to appreciate the evidence available on record in its proper perspective. The learned Family Court ought to have appreciated and held that, while determining the quantum of maintenance, the status and 8nancial capacity of the parties are relevant considerations. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent is a joint owner of 20.00 acres of agricultural land and has suAcient means to pay the maintenance claimed by the applicants. It is respectfully submitted that the learned Family Court has completely lost sight of the fact that applicant No. 1 has no independent source of income to maintain herself and the children. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to an adequate amount of maintenance, and the amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month claimed by them is reasonable and justi8ed in the facts and 4 circumstances of the case. He submits that for the reasons stated hereinabove, amongst other grounds, the impugned order is bad in law and on facts and is, therefore, liable to be set aside and modi8ed accordingly. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 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, partly allowed the application 8led under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No. 1, Rs. 1,000/- per month to applicant No. 2, and Rs. 1,000/- per month to applicant No. 3. While determining the quantum of maintenance, the learned Family Court duly considered the income, social and economic status of both parties, as well as the prevailing price index. Therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded cannot be said to be inadequate or on the lower side. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the 8nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in8rmity 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. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek