1 2025:CGHC:51166 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1238 of 2025 1. Smt. Veena Devi Kashyap W/o Ravindra Kashyap Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Loharsi, P.S. Pamgarh, District- Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh At Present Address- Village Sel, Post Sel, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgrh. 2. Minor Amit Kumar S/o Ravindra Kashyap Aged About 17 Years Through- Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Veena Devi Kashyap, Wife of Ravindra Kashyap, R/o Village Loharsi, P.S. Pamgarh, District- Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh At Present Address- Village Sel, Post Sel, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgrh. ...Applicant(s) versus Ravindra Kashyap S/o Trijugi Kashyap Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Loharsi, P.S. Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh At Present Resident of Rupali Road, Modi Chowk, Head Post Office Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Manish Thakur, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.10.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicants prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and modify/enhance impugned maintenance order dated 05.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.15 18:33:39 +0530 2 Balodabazar District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. in Misc. Criminal Case No. 223/2024 as sought by the applicants in application under Section 146 of BNSS. For seeking granting maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month, in the interest of justice. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C./Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking grant of maintenance. It is an admitted fact that the applicants and the respondent solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites, rituals, and customs. Since then, the applicants and the respondent were peacefully residing together as husband and wife, and out of their wedlock, one son was born. The case of the applicants is that the applicant No. 1 and the respondent initially shared cordial relations. However, after some time of marriage, the respondent started harassing and mentally torturing the applicants by demanding dowry and using filthy language against them. Due to such continuous harassment, the applicant No. 1 was compelled to live separately in a rented house. She has no independent source of income. The applicant No. 1 has been bearing heavy expenses towards household needs, education, and medical treatment of her son, amounting to approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month. Being a housewife, she is unable to meet such expenses and is facing great difficulty in maintaining herself and her minor son. The respondent, on the other hand, is a government servant working as an Inspector in the Head Post Office, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/-. He also owns agricultural land from which he earns about Rs. 10,00,000/- annually, and he runs a grocery (kirana) business generating an income of about Rs. 3,00,000/- per month. Therefore, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C./Section 144 of the 3 B.N.S.S. seeking maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the respondent. 3. The respondent filed a written statement and denied all the averments made in the said application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C./Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. 4. Thereafter, the learned Family Court, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) granted a very low maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- each (total Rs. 4,000/-) vide its order dated 12.04.2018 in M.J.C. No. 16/2012. 5. Subsequently, the applicants filed an application under Section 146 of the B.N.S.S. before the learned Family Court, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. 20,000/- each). 6. The respondent again filed a written statement denying all the averments made in the said application under Section 146 of the B.N.S.S. 7. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide its order dated 05.07.2025, partly allowed the application under Section 146 of the B.N.S.S. filed by the applicants and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month to the applicants — granting Rs. 6,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 6,000/- per month to applicant No. 2 till his attaining majority. Hence, the present revision has been preferred. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicants. The applicant No.1 had to leave her matrimonial home due to the cruelty inflicted by the respondent. The respondent has also solemnized another marriage, due to which the applicant No. 1 has suffered both mentally and physically. 4 He submits that the learned Family Family Court has failed to properly consider the application under Section 146 of the B.N.S.S. and has granted an insufficient enhancement of the maintenance amount, which is against the settled principles of law. Learned Family Court has overlooked the fact that the applicants are facing severe financial hardship and are unable to meet even the basic expenses for survival and for the education of the minor son. The impugned order granting a low maintenance amount is not satisfactory and, therefore, the maintenance amount deserves to be enhanced. He further submits that the learned Family Court has ignored the statement of applicant No. 1 and has passed the impugned order contrary to law and the evidence available on record. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that granting a meagre maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- each (total Rs. 4,000/-) to the applicants is wholly insufficient for their survival and livelihood. The applicant No. 1, being a housewife, has no means to meet domestic and educational expenses, and therefore, the amount granted is inadequate. He further submits that the applicant has no source of income and is not dependent upon anyone else for her livelihood. Hence, the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court is liable to be enhanced. The learned Family Court has overlooked the fact that the respondent himself admitted that the applicant is his legally wedded wife. The respondent is a government servant working as an Inspector in the Head Post Office, drawing a salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month. He also owns agricultural land from which he earns approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- annually and runs a grocery (kirana) business generating around Rs. 3,00,000/- per month. Despite these facts, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 146 of the B.N.S.S. and granted only Rs. 12,000/- instead of Rs. 30,000/-, without 5 considering the material available on record. The respondent has also received a bonus amount of Rs. 1,44,960/- under the Unnati Yojna scheme for his agricultural land. Moreover, the respondent’s father, Trijugi, has his name recorded over the land bearing Khasra No. 2624/1 in the revenue record (B-1 Kistbandi Khatauni), and the respondent’s brother, Ravendra, has his name recorded over 8.75 acres (3.5010 hectares) of agricultural land. The respondent is presently posted as Assistant Superintendent in the Post Office and draws a monthly salary of Rs. 64,000/-. He also submits that the applicants are facing severe economic hardship due to the unsatisfactory maintenance amount granted by the learned Family Family Court. Considering the financial condition of the respondent, who is economically well-off, he is fully capable of paying the maintenance amount as sought by the applicants in their application under Section 146 of the B.N.S.S. He also submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is most humbly prayed that the maintenance amount be suitably enhanced in the interest of justice. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 146 of the BNSS filed by the applicants and has enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 12000/- for the applicants (Rs. 6000/- each to the applicant), observing the income, social and economic status of both parties and the current price index, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the 6 applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek