1 CGHC010167812025 2026:CGHC:36248 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 571 of 2025 1 - Rehan Ansari S/o Samshuddin Ansari Aged About 15 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Sadika Ansari, W/o Samshuddin Ansari, Aged About Currently 45 Years, R/o Kilapara Dongargaon, Post And Tehsil- Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Farhan Ansari S/o Samshuddin Ansari Aged About 11 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Sadika Ansari, W/o Samshuddin Ansari, Aged About Currently 45 Years, R/o Kilapara Dongargaon, Post And Tehsil- Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Samshuddin Ansari S/o Imamuddin Ansari Aged About 43 Years R/o Rani Laxmibai Ward Kilapara Dongargaon, Post And Tehsil- Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, holding the brief of Mr. Premshankar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /08/2026 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.02.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.32/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the petitioners seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court, Raipur, in their favour. The petitioners are the minor children of the respondent, whose marriage with their mother was solemnized on 22.04.2007 in accordance with Muslim rites and customs, and out of the said wedlock, petitioner No.1 was born on 09.08.2009 and petitioner No.2 on 15.12.2014. The petitioners are presently studying in Class 10 and Class 5, respectively, at Government English Medium School, Dongargaon, and are residing with their mother. The respondent, who was initially employed as a teacher in a private school, was subsequently appointed as Shikshakarmi Grade-III on 01.01.2011 and is presently posted at Village Girgaon. It is the case of the petitioners that their mother has been bearing the entire responsibility of their education, maintenance 3 and upbringing and that the respondent has failed to provide any financial assistance for the last four years. It is further alleged that the respondent developed an illicit relationship with one Jeena Sonkar and subsequently started residing with her, from whom a child, namely Mohd. Arman Ansari, was born on 10.02.2020. The respondent, in his reply, denied the allegations and contended that the mother of the petitioners had refused to take care of his aged parents, insisted upon living separately and subjected him to abuse and ill-treatment. He further pleaded that he had given Talaq-e-Ahsan on 06.12.2022 and that the mother of the petitioners is employed as a Head Teacher and earns approximately Rs.55,000/- per month. He also stated that he had instituted proceedings under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act seeking custody of the children. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Family Court, Raipur, awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to petitioner No.2, totalling Rs.3,500/- per month. Being aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance so awarded, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount on the ground that the amount awarded is grossly inadequate having regard to their educational and other needs and the respondent's earning capacity. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the petitioners submit that the maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month awarded by 4 the learned Family Court, i.e., Rs.2,000/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,500/- to petitioner No.2, is grossly inadequate and disproportionate to their actual needs as minor school-going children. The learned Court failed to consider their expenses towards education, books, uniforms, tuition, transport, medical care and other basic necessities, as well as their growing needs. The respondent is a government employee working as Shikshakarmi Grade-III and, in his cross-examination, admitted his net monthly income to be approximately Rs.41,314/-. Despite having sufficient means, he has failed to discharge his legal and moral obligation towards the petitioners, while their mother is bearing the entire burden of their upbringing and education. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the respondent's financial position and relied upon an affidavit which contained material discrepancies regarding his income and dependents. The respondent disclosed a lower income in his affidavit but admitted a higher income during cross- examination and also failed to properly disclose the woman and child residing with him. The Court also placed undue reliance upon the fact that the mother of the petitioners is employed, overlooking that the father's obligation to maintain his minor children is not extinguished merely because the mother is earning. The respondent has allegedly neglected the petitioners and has not contributed towards their education, maintenance or welfare for several years. He also submits that the amount awarded is 5 contrary to the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is intended to prevent destitution and ensure reasonable maintenance to children. The learned Family Court failed to consider the status and earning capacity of the respondent, the actual expenses and growing needs of the petitioners, and the principle that children are entitled to a standard of living commensurate with that of their parents. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun and Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna, the petitioners seek enhancement of the maintenance to a just, reasonable and adequate amount. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants 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 has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance, holding that the applicants are minor children dependent upon their mother for 6 their upbringing and education. The learned Family Court further found that although the respondent is employed and earning approximately Rs.41,314/- per month after deductions, the mother of the applicants is also earning and her income is stated to be higher than that of the respondent. Taking into consideration the respective incomes, educational needs of the applicants, the respondent’s other family responsibilities and the absence of specific evidence regarding the claimed monthly expenditure of Rs.15,000/-, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance to the applicants as aforementioned, 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