1 CGHC010225222025 2026:CGHC:36279 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 727 of 2025 Lakshay S/o Mangalu Ram Suryavanshi Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Father Mangalu Ram, S/o Late Guharam, Aged About 33 Years, Caste Suryavanshi R/o Choriya, P.S. Saragaon, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Gayatri Kharsan (Suryavanshi) W/o Mangaluram Suryavanshi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Jagmahant, Tahsil And P.S. Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been ;led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and modify / ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.14 18:53:49 +0530 2 enhance impugned order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge family Court Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 223/2023 and also may kindly be enhanced granting maintenance amount as sought by the applicant in application for seeking granting maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant had ;led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the applicant’s father, namely Mangaluram Suryavanshi, and the respondent solemnized their marriage on 13.05.2014 according to Hindu rites, rituals and customs. After their marriage, the respondent resided peacefully with her husband as his wife, and out of their wedlock, one son, namely the applicant, was born, who is presently aged about 08 years. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant’s father, Mangaluram Suryavanshi, and the respondent maintained a good relationship for a considerable period of time. However, on 29.03.2018, the respondent left her matrimonial home without giving any information or notice to her husband. Thereafter, she solemnized a second marriage with Vinod Lathiya, resident of Village Jagmahant, and is presently residing separately with her second husband, Vinod Lathiya. Out of their wedlock, one son has also been born. The minor applicant is presently studying in Class 3rd. The applicant’s father is taking care of the minor applicant and is a poor person having no suBcient source of income. He is unable to meet the expenses towards the livelihood, education and proper care of the minor applicant. On the other hand, the respondent is working as a 3 Nagar Sena Home Guard and is earning approximately Rs. 25,000/- per month as salary. She is also in possession of agricultural land measuring approximately 3 acres belonging to her brother, from which she earns an annual income of approximately Rs. 85,000/-. Therefore, the applicant ;led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the respondent. 4. The respondent ;led her written statement and appeared before the learned Trial Court, wherein she denied the allegations and contentions raised by the applicant in the application. 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the maintenance application and awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month, instead of the claimed amount of Rs.15,000/- per month, vide its order dated 11.06.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 223/2023, is wholly unsatisfactory and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court is liable to be enhanced. The learned Family Court has found that the applicant has duly proved his case by way of evidence. Despite the same, the learned Family Court has awarded a meagre amount of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The amount so awarded is insuBcient to meet the basic needs and expenses of the minor applicant. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be modi;ed and the maintenance amount is liable to be enhanced. He also submits that the applicant’s father is a very poor person and has no suBcient means or source of income to support the minor applicant. He is unable to properly take care of the minor applicant’s expenses towards 4 education, medical treatment, food, clothing and other basic necessities. Due to the meagre amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court, the applicant’s father is facing great diBculty in maintaining and providing proper care to the minor applicant. He also submits that the learned Court has completely ignored the fact that the applicant’s mother, i.e., the respondent, left her matrimonial home and thereafter solemnized a second marriage with Vinod Lathiya, resident of Village Jagmahant. She is presently residing separately and peacefully with her second husband, Vinod Lathiya, and is not taking care of the minor applicant. The applicant’s father is taking care of the minor applicant and is a poor person having no suBcient source of income. He is solely responsible for meeting the expenses relating to the survival, education and proper care of the minor applicant. Due to his limited ;nancial resources, he is unable to properly maintain the minor applicant. The respondent is working as a Nagar Sena Home Guard and is earning approximately Rs. 25,000/- per month as salary. She is also having agricultural land measuring approximately 3 acres belonging to her brother, from which she earns an annual income of approximately Rs. 85,000/-. Thus, the respondent has suBcient income and ;nancial capacity to pay the maintenance amount claimed by the applicant in his application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that the learned Family Court has committed an error in appreciating the evidence available on record regarding the income and sources of income of the respondent and has wrongly recorded its ;ndings regarding her ;nancial capacity. Therefore, the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court is insuBcient and is liable to be enhanced. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent 5 opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 223/2023. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. 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, has partly allowed the application ;led under Section 125 of the CrPC by the applicant. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded the maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to the applicant. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the ;nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in;rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek