1 2025:CGHC:52461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1293 of 2025 1 - Chandni @ Rakhi Sonkar W/o Rustam Sonkar Aged About 31 Years R/o Aapapura Shanichari Market, The Street Adjacent To Madras Factory, Durg Tahsil And District Durg C.G. 2 - Yash @ Shivansh Sonkar S/o Rustam Sonkar Aged About 7 Years Minor Yash @ Shivansh Sonkar Through Legal Guardina Mother Chandni @ Rakhi Sonkar, W/o Rustam Sonkar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Aapapura Shanichari Market, The Street Adjacent To Madras Factory, Durg Tahsil And District Durg C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Rustam Sonkar S/o Daulatram Sonkar Aged About 35 Years Present Address R/o Near Shitla Mata Mandir Talab, Gunderdehi, Tah. Gundardehi, District Balod C.G., Permanent Address R/o Village- Near Khuteri Rangthera Talab, Gundardehi, Tah Gundardehi, District Balod C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28 /10/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.1101/2024, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and granted Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.2, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants preferred an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) seeking maintenance from the respondent Rustam Sonkar. The applicant No. 1 stated that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and applicant No. 2, is their son. The marriage took place on 25.12.2020 at Langur Mandir, Aapapura, District Durg (C.G.). It was alleged that soon after marriage, the respondent began quarrelling over trivial issues, assaulted the applicant, broke her mobile phone, and maintained illicit relationships with other women. Despite several complaints made to relatives and before the Women’s Cell, Sector-6, Bhilai, no improvement occurred. Ultimately, the respondent abandoned the applicant on 06.12.2022 and has not taken her back since. The applicant, having no source of income, stated that the respondent earns about ₹30,000 per month through private work and sought monthly maintenance of ₹10,000 (₹5,000 each for herself and her minor son). 3. Thereafter, the respondent appeared before the Family Court, denied the allegations, and claimed that the applicant was 3 suspicious and often left for her maternal home on her own accord. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application, rejecting the claim of applicant No. 1 and granting only ₹2,000 per month as maintenance for applicant No. 2, the minor child. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) is bad in law, perverse, and contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore deserves to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the applicant’s case and erred in rejecting maintenance to applicant No. 1 while granting only ₹2,000 per month to applicant No. 2, the minor child, which is grossly inadequate. The findings of the Court are based on wrong presumptions and misinterpretation of facts. The respondent earns around ₹30,000 per month from property dealing, car sales, and agricultural income, and is fully capable of providing proper maintenance. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be modified and the maintenance amount enhanced to ₹10,000 per month in favour of the applicants. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed 4 by the applicants and granted Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.2, towards maintenance, considering the evidence on record, held that applicant No. 1, is capable of earning her livelihood as she is engaged in legal practice and therefore not entitled to maintenance. However, the Court found that applicant No.2 being the minor son of the respondent, is entitled to receive maintenance as aforementioned, until the child attains majority, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil