1 CGHC010140672025 2026:CGHC:37123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 489 of 2025 1 - Lucky Lahre @ Lucky Sahu W/o Shri Vinod Kumar Lahare Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Dumarpara, Police Station- Baradwar, District- Sakti (C.G.) At Present R/o Room No.- 08, Block- A, 11th Batalian, Putpura, Police Station- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Avinav Lahre S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Lahare Aged About 4 Years applicant No. 2 Is Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother Lucky Lahre, R/o Village- Dumarpara, Police Station- Baradwar, District- Sakti (C.G.) At Present R/o Room No.- 08, Block- A, 11th Batalian, Putpura, Police Station- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Vinod Kumar Lahare S/o Sudhram Lahare Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Dumarpara, Police Station- Baradwar, District- Sakti (C.G.) At Present R/o 5th Vahini (Bha./r), Chhattisgarh Armed Force (C.A.F.) Jagdalpur, District- Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19 /08/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Janjgir, District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.319/2023, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to applicant No.2, while rejecting the said application with respect to applicant No.1. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their love marriage was solemnized on 25.07.2019 at Arya Samaj, Raipur, according to Hindu rites and customs, from which wedlock applicant No.2 was born. It is alleged that after a few months of peaceful matrimonial life, the respondent and his family members started subjecting applicant No.1 to cruelty on account of their opposition to the love marriage and, on 14.06.2022, the respondent allegedly quarrelled with applicant No.1 and drove her out of the matrimonial home along with the minor child. Thereafter, applicant No.1 approached the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir and the Family Counselling Centre, where the parties entered into a compromise on 30.09.2022 and thereafter resumed living together in the respondent’s Government Quarter. 3 Subsequently, after the respondent was transferred to Jagdalpur, he allegedly refused to reside with the applicants, resulting in another complaint and settlement between the parties. Thereafter, when the applicants went to the respondent’s parental home at Village Dumarpara, the respondent and his family members allegedly again subjected them to cruelty and drove applicant No.1 and the minor child out of the house. Consequently, applicant No.1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Janjgir, seeking maintenance, which was contested by the respondent. After recording the evidence of both sides, the learned Family Court rejected the claim of applicant No.1 but partly allowed the application in respect of applicant No.2 and directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the minor child. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, is erroneous, illegal and contrary to the facts and law, as the learned Court below failed to properly appreciate the material circumstances and rejected the maintenance claim of applicant No.1 while granting maintenance only to applicant No.2. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be modified by granting maintenance to applicant No.1 and enhancing the amount awarded to applicant No.2. He further submits that the learned Family Court further failed to appreciate that applicant No.1 was 4 subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment by the respondent and his family members and was driven out of the matrimonial home, thereby providing sufficient and reasonable cause for her separate residence. Despite the said circumstances, the claim of applicant No.1 was rejected without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. He also submits that as per the respondent’s salary slip, he earns approximately Rs.48,987/- per month and has sufficient means to maintain his wife and minor child according to their reasonable needs and standard of living. The respondent, being the husband and father, is legally bound to maintain the applicants; hence, the maintenance awarded to applicant No.2 also deserves to be enhanced and appropriate maintenance ought to be granted to applicant No.1. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to applicant No.2, while rejecting the said 5 application with respect to applicant No.1, holding that applicant No.1 is a graduate and trained in beauty parlour work and had earlier carried on such business, and therefore, she was capable of maintaining herself. However, applicant No.2 was held to be the biological and natural son of the respondent and, considering the respondent’s employment as a Constable and his gross monthly salary of Rs.48,987/-, the learned Family Court found him financially capable of maintaining the minor child. Accordingly, the respondent was directed to pay maintenance as aforementioned till he attains majority, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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