1 2026:CGHC:7096 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 133 of 2024 1. Nandini Bhardwaj W/o Shri Praveen Bhardwaj, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Nangoi Mohalla Uraiyapaara Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Shresth Bhardwaj, S/o. Praveen Bhardwaj, Aged About 11 Months, Represented Through Mother Nandini Bhadwaj, R/o Village Nangoi Mohalla Uraiyapaara Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Praveen Bhardwaj S/o. Late Badri Prasad Bhardwaj Aged About 40 Years R/o Ucchbhatti Post Selar Thana Tehsil Seepat District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Present Hall Mukaam, Prabhat Chowk, Sai Mandir Ke Paas, Below Peepal Tree, Chingrajpara Thaana Sarkanda Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been 9led by the applicants with the following ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.11 10:56:47 +0530 2 prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the impugned by the judgment dated 04.11.2023, passed by principle Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 08/2022, may kindly be revised as per applicant's current situation.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicants 9led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking grant of maintenance in favour of both the applicants. The said application is humbly sought to be revised herein due to certain prevailing circumstances. The marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized in the month of May, 2014, in accordance with the rituals and customs of their society, and one child, i.e., applicant No.2, was born out of the said wedlock. It is alleged that after about one year of marriage, the respondent started mentally harassing and physically assaulting applicant No.1. However, for the sake of her child, applicant No.1 tolerated the said conduct and did not resist. In the year 2021, when the behaviour of the respondent did not improve, applicant No.1 was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. The respondent has allegedly been maintaining an extra-marital relationship with another woman and has completely neglected his marital obligations. The respondent has failed to maintain the applicants and has also not complied with the maintenance amount earlier ordered by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur. 4. The respondent 9led his reply to the said application and denied the averments made by the applicants. The respondent alleged that applicant No.1 used to quarrel and misbehave with him and his family 3 members. The learned Family court recorded the statements of both parties, and witnesses were examined, including applicant No.1 and the respondent. 5. The learned Family Court, vide impugned judgment dated 04.11.2023, partially allowed the application 9led by the applicants and held that applicant No.1 is entitled to maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month and applicant No.2 is entitled to maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the maintenance amount awarded is wholly insu@cient for the Applicants to lead a normal and digni9ed life. Learned Counsel submits that the Learned Court has not properly appreciated the statements of the parties on record, which clearly establish that the Applicants have no independent source of income. It is further submitted that Applicant No. 1 is suAering from severe medical conditions and is required to incur regular expenditure towards medicines and treatment. He submits that there is a clear and blatant violation of the well-settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh v. Neha, which mandates a realistic and just assessment of maintenance considering the needs of the dependents and the 9nancial capacity of the respondent. He submits that the impugned order is bad in law, perverse, and arbitrary, having been passed without proper appreciation of the material on record. Learned Counsel submits that the Learned Court ought to have duly considered that the Respondent is the sole earning member of his family, belongs to a well-to-do background, and has su@cient income from agricultural land as well as from a jointly owned shop. The Learned Court failed to strike a proper balance while determining the maintenance amount payable to the Applicants. Learned Counsel further submits that the Learned Family Court has committed a grave error by not 4 appreciating the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in their true spirit and intent, which is to prevent destitution and ensure sustenance to the dependents. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application 9led under Section 125 of the CrPC by the applicants. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to the applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1000/- to the applicant No. 2. The Court also considered the income, social and economic status of both parties, as well as the prevailing price index, and the award cannot be said to be on the lower side. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 9nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in9rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek