1 2025:CGHC:40533 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 995 of 2025 Rajesh Sonwani S/o Shri Shivlal Sonwani Aged About 44 Years Occupation - Employee, Nagar Sainik, Police Department, R/o.- Manpur, Masjid Mohalla, Near Sadhuram Vidya Mandir School, Nagar Palika Parishad, Surajpur, Post- Surajpur, Police Station And Tehsil- Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Urmila Sonwani W/o Rajesh Sonwani Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Housewife, R/o Village- Keshvnagar, Lakdapara, Post Office - Surajpur, Police Station- Vishrampur, Tehsil- Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) Presently R/o. Village- Panchayat- Katora, Harijan Mohalla, Near Railway Lines, Post- Patna, Police Station And Tehsil- Patna, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Surfaraz Khan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that the Revision may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by learned Judge (Family Court Manendragarh, Camp Baikunthpur, District- Koriya KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 143/2024, may kindly be set-aside, and the application filed by the respondent may kindly be rejected, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant has preferred an application against the applicant under Section 144 of the BNSS (Section 125 of the corresponding law i.e. Cr.P.C.) before the learned Family Court Manendragarh, Camp Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) for grant of maintenance. Whereas, the non-applicant has pleaded in the application that the marriage of Non-applicant with the applicant was solemnized in the year 2001 as per Hindu law and customs and from their marriage a son named Sameer Sonawani was born on 23.03.2003 and he currently lives with the Non-applicant. As per the averment in the application (Annexure A- 1), there was a cordial and harmony relationship between the applicant and the non-applicant, and subsequently the relationship got dried immediately after couple of months from the date of marriage. Thereafter, due lack of financial hardship, the non- applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance against the applicant herein. 3. The learned Family Court has registered the case and thereafter the notice was issued to the applicant. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, finally on 24.07.2025, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application for grant of maintenance to the Non-applicant by granting an amount of maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Hence this Revision. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court acted with material irregularities and passed the impugned Order (Annexure P-1) with non-application of mind because the non-applicant was not afforded an opportunity of hearing to participate in the matter. The learned Family Court was very well aware that the applicant is not at fault. He further submits that the learned Family Court committed a great mistake of facts as well as law without forgoing the miserable condition in which the applicant is going through his life because the non-applicant ought to have resided with the applicant rather than filing the maintenance case, as the non-applicant had left the home of the applicant without any sufficient reason and didn't returned back to the applicant's place for discharging her matrimonial duties. He further submits that as the learned Family Court arrived to a wrong conclusion while passing the impugned order (Annexure P/1), as in the present case the learned Family Court ought to have rejected the application of maintenance filed by the non-applicant, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court in the series of matter and that too at the letter and spirit of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that the learned Family Court has passed the maintenance amount in higher side without considering the evidence and documents available on record. Therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 4 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicant has succeeded in proving her application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, monthly income of the applicant and other expenses, the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to the non-applicant as maintenance, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to the non-applicant, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal