1 2025:CGHC:54589 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1358 of 2025 1. Smt. Triveni Sahu W/o Shri Shrikant Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Torla Nawapara, Thana - Kunda, Tahsil- Pandariya, Distt.- Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh 2. Kumari Gunjan Sahu D/o Shri Shrikant Sahu Aged About 14 Years Minot Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Smt. Triveni Sahu, W/o Shri Shrikant Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, At Present R/o Village- Torla Nawapara, Thana - Kunda, Tahsil- Pandariya, Distt.- Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh 3. Anshdeep Sahu S/o Shri Shrikant Sahu Aged About 11 Years Minot Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Smt. Triveni Sahu, W/o Shri Shrikant Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, At Present R/o Village- Torla Nawapara, Thana - Kunda, Tahsil- Pandariya, Distt.- Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Shrikant Sahu S/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal Sahu Aged About 40 Years Occupation - Service As Assistant Grade- III, At Govt. Higher Secondary School Lormi, Distt. Mungeli, R/o Village- Bhoura Kachhar, Thana- Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.11.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned Judge, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.10 17:31:54 +0530 2 Family Court, Kabeerdham, District - Kabeerdham (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.143/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Applicant No. 1, Smt. Triveni Sahu, is awarded a maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/-, and Applicant No. 2, minor Kumari Gunjan Sahu, and Applicant No. 3, minor Anshdeep Sahu, are each awarded Rs. 2,500/- per month, totaling Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant took place on 20.04.2006 as per the customs prevailing in their community and in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. The non-applicant/Husband remained ex-parte in the proceedings before the Family Court and did not file any reply in the case. The averments in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed before the Family Court are that, after the marriage, the Applicant started residing at her matrimonial home along with the family members at Village Bhoura Kachhar. Out of the wedlock, Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were born. The non- applicant had the habit of consuming liquor excessively, and after drinking, he used to harass, beat, and throw the Applicant out of the house. However, the Applicant-wife somehow adjusted to the situation, considering the welfare of her children. On several occasions, community meetings were held, in which the non-applicant and his late father, Shri Lakhan Lal, assured the community that such misconduct would not be repeated and that the Applicants would be treated peacefully. That, it was further averred in the application that on 10.05.2024, the non-applicant brutally assaulted Applicant No. 1, beating her like an animal and attempting to kill her by strangulation. Consequently, the Applicant informed her parents and lodged a report at the police station. However, 3 the police did not register an FIR and advised her to approach the Court. Thereafter, the Applicants started residing at the address mentioned above, as the non-applicant had threatened to kill all three Applicants. The non-applicant/Husband is employed as an Assistant Grade-III in the Education Department, having obtained the appointment on compassionate grounds. He also owns 4 acres of agricultural land, a tractor, and other agricultural equipment, from which he earns approximately Rs. 2,00,000/- per year through agricultural activities, in addition to drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/-. Therefore, the Applicant-wife and children prayed for a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- each, totaling Rs. 30,000/- per month, to provide for the children’s education, food, and other essential needs. The non- applicant/Husband remained ex-parte, did not file a written statement on his behalf, and did not participate in the proceedings before the learned Family Court, Kabirdham. The learned Family Court framed issues and, after appreciating all the material available on record, recorded findings in paragraph 14 of the impugned order that due to harassment and cruelty, the Applicants are residing separately. However, instead of awarding a sufficient amount for maintenance, the Court granted only a meager sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month in favor of the applicants, which is inadequate even to meet the monthly food expenses. Hence, this present revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court erred in passing the impugned order by awarding a meager amount of maintenance only Rs. 3,000/- to applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 2,500/- each to the two minor children, aged 14 and 11 years, who are studying at Delhi School of Education, Mungeli. The documents evidencing their education were duly filed and are referred to in paragraph 10 of the impugned order. The learned Trial Court failed to consider that 4 the non-applicant is employed in a Government job and owns 4 acres of irrigated agricultural land, earning approximately Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum from agriculture and Rs. 30,000/- per month from his employment in the Education Department. The applicants, being his wife and children, are entitled to live in accordance with the non-applicant’s social and financial status. Although the learned Family Court recorded a finding in paragraph 13 of the impugned order that the petitioners are residing separately due to the non-applicant’s cruelty, it failed to appreciate that the maintenance awarded is insufficient even to meet basic food expenses and school fees. The learned Family Court erred in law by granting an inadequate amount of maintenance, contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC, wherein it was held that the husband is legally bound to maintain his wife and ensure she enjoys the same standard of living as she would have had in the matrimonial home. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the non-applicant is financially well-off, earning more than Rs. 2,25,000/- per month, and is fully capable of maintaining the petitioners. His deliberate absence in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., despite having filed a divorce petition in Mumbai, clearly shows his mala fide intent to evade legal responsibility. Once the learned Family Court held that the petitioners are residing separately for just and sufficient reasons, it was bound under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to grant adequate maintenance. The failure to do so, especially when the non- applicant remained ex-parte, is unsustainable in law. The learned Trial Court ignored the binding guidelines and principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC, regarding the determination of a fair and reasonable quantum of maintenance. The appliacant Nos. 2 and 3, being minor children studying in middle school, 5 require sufficient funds for their education. The meager amount awarded is inadequate to meet school fees and educational expenses, which may result in their expulsion from school and adversely affect their future. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 730/2020, Rajnesh vs. Neha & Others, decided on 04.11.2020, the affidavit of disclosure submitted by Applicant No. 1/wife mentions her educational and professional qualifications as Class 10th pass, her occupation as a housewife, and her income as nil. She has stated the date/period of living separately as 10.05.2024. In the affidavit of disclosure submitted by the non-applicant/husband, his educational qualification is mentioned as Class 12th pass, and his occupation as Assistant Grade-III in the Education Department, with a monthly income of Rs. 27,450/-. The non-applicant is a 40-year-old man, and there is no record or evidence on file indicating any physical or mental disability. Since he is employed in government service, he shall be considered a person having sufficient means. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 6 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti