Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:43374 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 550 of 2019 1 - Smt. Hema Singh And Another W/o Shri Trinetra Pratap Singh Aged About 30 Years Occupation - House Wife R/o Kushwaha Complex, B.S.N.L. Road Darri Para, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Pankhudi Singh, D/o Shri Trinetra Pratap Singh, Aged About 2.5 Years, Minor Through - Natural Guardian I.E. Mother Smt. Hema Singh, R/o Kushwaha Complex, B.S.N.L. Road Darri Para, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicants Trinetra Pratap Singh S/o Late Baj Bahadur Singh Aged About 31 Years Occupation - Government Service, R/o Ward No. 1, Juna Lakhanpur, Post Lakhanpur, Police Station And Tahsil - Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. Presently Resided At - District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Branch Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Varunendra Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 26.08.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel the applicants. Also heard Mr. Varunendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision, modify the impugned order dated 18.01.2019 and enhance the amount of monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of applicants from the date of application U/s. 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by applicants, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of Applicant No.1 with the respondent, who is employed with District Cooperative Central Bank Limited and earns Rs.20,000/- per month, was solemnized on 09.12.2011 in accordance with Hindu rites, and out of the wedlock Applicant No.2 was born. From the very next day of marriage, Applicant No.1 was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law on account of demand of dowry, and even the respondent also subjected her to such harassment. During her pregnancy in early 2012, she was denied proper medical care and nutrition, compelling her to call her brother on 21.11.2012, after which she started residing at her parental home, where on 19.05.2013 she gave birth to Applicant No.2, and all expenses were borne by her parents. On 16.10.2013, when she returned to her matrimonial house with her infant, she was taunted, assaulted, and 3 thereafter lodged a written report at Police Station Lakhanpur, following which she and her parents were threatened to withdraw the complaint. Despite several attempts of settlement, the respondent and his family remained unwilling to resolve the dispute. Having no independent source of income and being unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter, Applicant No.1 filed an application before the Family Court, Surguja, seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, partly allowed the application and awarded Rs.2,000/- per month to Applicant No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to Applicant No.2 till her majority and marriage, which being meagre, aggrieved by which the present revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 08.01.2019 (Annexure A-1) is contrary to the facts, evidence and materials available on record, the same deserves to be modified and the maintenance amount enhanced in accordance with the application filed by the applicants. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent himself has admitted in his statement before the Court that his monthly salary is Rs.25,000/-, yet the amount of maintenance awarded in favour of the applicants is too meagre and wholly insufÏcient, particularly in view of the prevailing circumstances and the ever-increasing cost of living. The Court ought to have considered the financial capacity of the respondent and the genuine needs of the applicants while determining maintenance, but instead, the order passed does not adequately safeguard their sustenance. Further, it is also relevant to 4 note that Applicant No.1 has already instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent, which is still pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, thereby demonstrating her bona fide intention to continue the marital relationship. However, in the meantime, she has no independent means of livelihood to maintain herself and her minor daughter, which makes it imperative that the quantum of maintenance be reasonably enhanced. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly appreciating the pleadings, evidence and circumstances brought on record, has rightly exercised its discretion in partly allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarding maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to Applicant No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to Applicant No.2 till her majority and marriage. The Court has taken into account the admitted salary of the respondent, the allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment, the strained relationship between the parties, and the fact that Applicant No.1 is residing separately along with her minor daughter without any independent source of 5 livelihood. At the same time, the Court has balanced the rights and liabilities of the parties by considering the financial obligations of the respondent and thereby fixed an amount which ensures sustenance of the applicants while not imposing an excessive or unreasonable burden on the respondent. 8. Considering the submission 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan