1 2025:CGHC:23772 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 686 of 2025 • Smt. Shrishti Singh W/o Pratik Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o At Present Mig, 23 Kailash Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) Mobile No. 7974825400 ... Applicant versus • Pratik Singh S/o Shri Shailendra Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Road No. 2/d, Plot No. 347/2, Rishali, Pragati Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) Mobile No. 7987911647 ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Not noticed Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 13/06/ 2025 1. The present revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 preferred against the impugned order dated 12.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Case No.1162/2024, wherein amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been granted on an application filed by the applicant herein under Section 144 of BNS. 2. Learned counsels appearing for the applicant submit that the SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.06.16 10:44:50 +0530 2 amount granted by the learned Principal Judge as maintenance is too meager which may be enhanced suitably as the respondent (husband) is working in the Technical Recutor Spleshbi Company and earned Rs.80,000/- per month. 3. I have heard learned Counsels appearing for the applicant and perused the documents annexed with the revision including the impugned order. 4. The applicant herein had filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S before the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) for grant of maintenance to Rs.30,000/-. Learned Principal judge after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record granted Rs.2,000/- towards maintenance vide impugned order dated 12.05.2025 passed in Case No. 1162/2024. 5. Having carefully examined the impugned order, I find no perversity, illegality, or inconsistency in the findings recorded by the learned Principal Judge. The conclusions appear to be well- reasoned and are duly supported by the oral and documentary evidence available on record. 6. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. 7. However, the Family Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.