1 2025:CGHC:60963 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1515 of 2025 1. Smt. Meena (Alias Soni) W/o Sunil Rajak Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bankhetpara (Charcha), Police Station Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea C.G., Presently R/o Village Ramanuj Nagar, Police Station And Tehsil Ramanuj Nagar, District Surajpur C.G. 2. Shivam S/o Sunil Rajak Aged About 6 Years Minor Represented By Applicant No. 1, Mother Namely Smt. Meena (Alias Soni), R/o Village Bankhetpara (Charcha), Police Station Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea C.G., Presently R/o Village Ramanuj Nagar, Police Station And Tehsil Ramanuj Nagar, District Surajpur C.G. 3. Kumari Nayra D/o Sunil Rajak Aged About 4 Years Minor Represented By Applicant No. 1, Mother Namely Smt. Meena (Alias Soni), R/o Village Bankhetpara (Charcha), Police Station Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea C.G., Presently R/o Village Ramanuj Nagar, Police Station And Tehsil Ramanuj Nagar, District Surajpur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Sunil Rajak S/o Amar Say Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bankhetpara (Charcha), Police Station Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Gyan Prakash SHukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.17 11:18:37 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.12.2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 173/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants and granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the applicants No.2 and 3 (Rs.1,500/- each). 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that applicant No.01 and the respondent were married as per Hindu rites, rituals and customs, and after their marriage they lived together as husband and wife. Out of the said wedlock, applicants No.02 and 03 were born. In the year 2024, applicant No.01 was compelled to reside at her parental home due to continuous cruelty and neglect on the part of the respondent. The respondent failed to maintain applicant No.01 and the minor children and did not provide them with basic necessities of life. Consequently, applicant No.01 filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, claiming maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. After considering the pleadings, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 06.08.2025, granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month only to applicants No.02 and 03 and wrongly denied maintenance to applicant No.01, which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, hence the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles governing grant of maintenance. It is submitted that applicant No.01 is legally wedded wife of the respondent 3 and is living separately for just and reasonable cause due to cruelty and neglect. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that applicant No.01 is unemployed, has no independent source of income, and is entirely dependent upon her parental family for survival. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent is gainfully employed and earning a substantial income, yet has willfully neglected and refused to maintain the applicants. It is further submitted that the amount of maintenance awarded to applicants No.02 and 03 is grossly inadequate considering their age, education, medical and day-to-day expenses. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Trial Court ignored the police complaint filed by applicant No.01 regarding physical assault and harassment by the respondent, which clearly establishes cruelty and neglect. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be modified by granting adequate maintenance to applicant No.01 and enhancing the maintenance amount awarded to applicants No.02 and 03. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned trial Court disbelieved the reasons given by applicant No.01 for living separately and, therefore, denied her maintenance. However, the Court acknowledged that two minor children aged 6 and 4 years were born from the wedlock and are residing with applicant No.01, and held that the respondent cannot be absolved of his responsibility to maintain them. The Court found that the respondent is capable of earning as a driver and, accordingly, granted maintenance to applicants No.02 and 03 while denying the same to applicant No.01. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by 4 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek