1 2025:CGHC:33496 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 855 of 2025 Smt. Ramkumari Rajput W/o Gopal Singh Rajput Aged About 59 Years R/o Krishna Bihar Colony, House No. C- 02 Bemetara, Post Bemetara, Police Station And Tahsil Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Gopal Singh Rajput S/o Ramnihora Rajput Aged About 64 Years R/o Krishna Bihar Colony, House No. C- 02 Bemetara, Post Bemetara, Police Station And Tahsil Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) Presently R/o Gopal Singh Rajput S/o Ramnihora Rajput Aged About 64 Years C/o Nirmala Thakur S/o Ramnihora Rajput Ward No. 16, Thakur Para Kawardha Police Station And Tahsil Kawardha, Post Kawardha District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajkumar Pali, learned counsel the applicant. 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 petition RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 and enhance the maintenance amount so far as it relates to the claim of applicant and further be please to modify the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case. No. 151/2024, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 before the learned Family Court, Kabirdham seeking maintenance from the non-applicant, stating that they were married as per Hindu rites at village Bemetara and have three children who now live separately. It was alleged that after marriage, the non-applicant became habitual of consuming alcohol and used to assault the applicant. A complaint was lodged on 22.09.2023 at Mahila Cell, Bemetara, which resulted in a compromise whereby the non-applicant agreed to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance. However, he paid only up to April 2024 and thereafter defaulted. The applicant submitted that the non- applicant, a retired constable from City Kotwali, Bemetara, had received retirement benefits of Rs. 25,00,000/- and draws a pension of Rs. 36,834/- per month, yet has denied his responsibility. The applicant, being elderly and facing health and financial difficulties, claimed Rs. 12,000/- per month as maintenance. In reply, the non-applicant denied the allegations, claimed the applicant misbehaved and left the matrimonial home on her own, and opposed the claim. After considering the pleadings and evidence, the learned trial Court allowed the application partly and awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the applicant under 3 Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023. Aggrieved by this, the present revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in partly allowing the applicant’s application under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 by awarding only Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance, without properly appreciating the evidence and circumstances of the case. The non-applicant, a retired government employee receiving a monthly pension of Rs. 36,000/- and having received retiral benefits of Rs. 25,00,000/-, has abandoned the applicant at the vulnerable stage of her life under the influence of his sister, and is now residing with her, while the applicant is facing severe financial and health issues. The learned Court failed to consider that the non-applicant used to assault the applicant and neglected her despite having sufficient means. The amount awarded is wholly inadequate considering present cost of living and the applicant’s dependency, and hence, the impugned order is liable to be modified by enhancing the maintenance amount 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 order passed by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, is just, reasoned, and based on a fair appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record. The Court has rightly considered the marital relationship between the parties, the fact that the non-applicant is a retired 4 government employee drawing a monthly pension of Rs. 36,834/-, and that the applicant, though residing separately, is an elderly woman facing financial and health-related hardships. At the same time, the Court has also taken into account the non-applicant’s stand regarding the nature of their separation and the previous compromise wherein he had agreed to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month, which he admittedly defaulted on after April 2024. By granting a maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, the learned Court has struck a fair balance between the financial capacity of the non-applicant and the reasonable needs of the applicant, ensuring basic sustenance without causing undue hardship to either party. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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