1 2025:CGHC:32296 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 840 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sangita Singh W/o Rakesh Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Nagar Panchayat Lakhanpur, Police Station And Post Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, C.G. 2 - Ku. Trisha Singh @ Shreyanshi Singh D/o Rakesh Singh Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Applicant No. 1 Mother Smt Sangita Singh, R/o Nagar Panchayat Lakhanpur, Police Station And Post Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, C.G. ... Applicants versus Rakesh Singh S/o Virendra Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Chhindiya, P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. R.V. Ram Rajwade, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. V. Ram Rajwade, learned counsel the applicants. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 set-aside the impugned order dated 16/05/2025 (ANNEXURE A-1) and enhanced/ modified the maintenance amount, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 01/2025 and the revision may be allowed in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 19.05.2013 as per Hindu rites. Out of the wedlock, one daughter namely Ku. Trisha Singh @ Shreyanshi Singh, aged about 7 years, was born and is currently residing with applicant No.1. It was alleged by the applicant that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondent and his family for a dowry of ₹5,00,000/-, due to which she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, seeking maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month each for herself and the child. The respondent, however, neglected to maintain them despite having sufficient means. The Family Court, vide impugned order dated 16.05.2025, rejected the claim of applicant No.1 and granted only a lesser amount to applicant No.2, without properly appreciating the facts and financial needs of the applicants. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred this revision before this Court, seeking appropriate relief. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the 3 learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.), has erred in passing the impugned order dated 16.05.2025 without properly appreciating the evidence and statements of the applicant and her witnesses. The order was passed ex-parte, as the respondent failed to appear before the court despite due notice. The learned Court failed to consider that the applicant, being the legally wedded wife of the respondent and having resided with him, is well aware of his income and assets. The findings with regard to cruelty and misbehavior by the respondent are perverse and based merely on assumptions, without due appreciation of the materials on record. Further, the Court arbitrarily denied maintenance to applicant No.1 and granted an inadequate amount to applicant No.2, without considering the prevailing cost of living and the financial capacity of the respondent. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be modified and enhanced in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case while passing the impugned order dated 16.05.2025. The Court carefully examined the pleadings and evidence placed on record and found that applicant No.1 had voluntarily left her matrimonial home without sufficient justification and failed to establish the alleged cruelty and dowry harassment with credible material. Further, the Family Court 4 noted that there was no substantial evidence of physical or mental cruelty that could warrant the grant of maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in favour of applicant No.1. However, considering the welfare of the minor child, the Court exercised its discretion judiciously by awarding a reasonable maintenance amount to applicant No.2, ensuring her basic needs are met. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan