Pratham Verma v. Shri Hemant Verma
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:41497 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1428 of 2024 Pratham Verma S/o Hemant Verma Aged About 2 Years The Applicant Is Being Minor On Behalf Of Through His Legal/natural Guardian Mother Smt. Leena Verma, W/o Hemant Verma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o- C/o Behind Basanti Barchhiha Kurmi Boarding, Tatyapara, Beside of Gali of Dr. Surendra Shukla, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) versus ... Applicant
Legal Reasoning
Shri Hemant Verma S/o Krishna Kumar Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o- Quarter No. 3/3, Ispat Nagar, Resali, Police Station- Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.08.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Yadav, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be 2 pleased to allowed this criminal revision and the impugned order dated 13/11/2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in M.C.C. Case No. 950/2023 [Pratham Verma Vs. Shri Hemant Verma] may kindly be set aside and modified and further may kindly be pleased to enhance the maintenance amount of the applicant which is awarded against respondent in the interest of justice. This Hon'ble court be further pleased to pass any other order or relief in favour of the present applicant as it deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of Justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the respondent/husband and the mother of the applicant was solemnized on 30/06/2021 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and from the said wedlock the applicant/son, namely Pratham Verma, was born on 07/07/2022. Thereafter, due to habitual drinking, cruelty, and harassment for dowry by the respondent, the mother of the applicant was compelled to reside separately along with the minor child since 08/12/2022. The applicant, through his natural guardian/ mother, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Raipur, registered as M.C.C. No. 950/2023, claiming Rs. 30,000/– per month on the ground that the respondent is working as a Cashier in State Bank of India, Gurur Branch, drawing a salary of more than Rs. 70,000/– per month and also having agricultural income of about Rs. 12,00,000/– annually. The respondent denied the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, 3 and further contended that the mother of the applicant is employed as a D.E.O. at Raipur and that he owns no agricultural land. Upon appreciation of pleadings, documents, and evidence of both parties, the learned Family Court, vide judgment dated 13/11/2024, allowed the application in part and awarded maintenance of Rs. 8,000/– per month to the applicant, rejecting the respondent’s objections. Being aggrieved that the Family Court awarded a lesser amount than even the interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/–, the applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision seeking modification and enhancement of the maintenance amount in accordance with Section 125 Cr.P.C., considering the tender age and growing expenses of the child. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 13/11/2024 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, and contrary to the facts on record, as the Court awarded only Rs. 8,000/– per month as maintenance to the minor applicant, which is wholly inadequate and unreasonable considering his age, present medical needs, and the inevitable increase in expenses towards schooling, education, and day-to-day necessities in future. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate that the respondent is employed as a Cashier in the State Bank of India, drawing a salary of more than Rs. 70,000/– per month, apart from agricultural income from 20 acres of land, and is financially well capable of maintaining the child, whereas the applicant, being a minor, has no independent source of income. The meager amount awarded does not commensurate with the standard 4 of living, rising costs of education and medical care, and the legitimate needs of the applicant, and the Court also erred in ignoring the evidence and documents on record in support of the applicant’s claim. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and suitably modified by enhancing the maintenance amount in the interest of justice. 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 Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur(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, upon due consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and documents adduced by both parties, has rightly held that the applicant, being a minor child, is legally entitled to be maintained by the respondent/father, who is gainfully employed and financially capable. The Court has rightly rejected the objections of the respondent and, while balancing the needs of the child with the income of the father, has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/– per month as maintenance to the applicant, which is just, proper, and in accordance with Section 125 Cr.P.C. The impugned order dated 13/11/2024, therefore, is well-reasoned, based on evidence. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding 5 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 record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan