1 2026:CGHC:19593 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 573 of 2026 Jagmohan Kumar Sai Alias Girja Sai S/o Shivcharan Sai Aged About 45 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Ward No. 06, Near Kabir Mandir Sahu Dharamshala, Kasdol, Police Station And Tehsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Anamika Sai W/o Jagmohan Kumar Sai Alias Girija Sai Aged About 40 Years Caste Satnami, R/o- Ward No. 06, Near Kabir Mandir Sahu Dharamshala, Kasdol, Police Station And Tehsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Chanchal Sai D/o Jagmohan Kumar Sai Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Anamika Sai, W/o Jagmohan Kumar Sai, R/o- Ward No. 06, Near Kabir Mandir Sahu Dharamshala, Kasdol, Police Station And Tehsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Yuvraj Sai S/o Jagmohan Kumar Sai Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Anamika Sai, W/o Jagmohan Kumar Sai, R/o- Ward No. 06, Near Kabir Mandir Sahu Dharamshala, Kasdol, Police Station And Tehsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.04.2026 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present revision and set aside or suitably modify the impugned order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 74/2025 whereby maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month has been awarded to the respondents, and reduce the same in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant is the legally wedded husband of non-applicant No.1 (wife), and their marriage was solemnized on 21.04.2008 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Shivrinarayan, out of which non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, namely minor daughter Kumari Chanchal and minor son Yuvraj, were born. It is the case of the non-applicants that due to matrimonial discord, cruelty and neglect, they were compelled to live separately and that the applicant, despite being financially capable, failed to properly maintain them, whereas the applicant, in his reply, denied the allegations and contended that he has been maintaining the non-applicants and that non-applicant No.1 is herself earning and residing along with him in the same house. Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court found that the 3 relationship between the parties as husband, wife and children is admitted and, therefore, the applicant is under a legal, moral and social obligation to maintain the non-applicants. The Court further observed that although the non-applicants are presently residing in the house constructed by the applicant and certain expenses such as electricity and other bills are being borne by him, still adequate monetary maintenance was required to be awarded. Accordingly, taking into account the status of the parties, their standard of living and the overall circumstances, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month each to the non-applicants, totaling Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of order, with the share of the minor children to be received and utilized by their mother until they attain majority. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be set aside, as the learned Court has failed to properly appreciate that the applicant has never neglected or refused to maintain the non-applicants and has, in fact, been continuously providing them with basic amenities including residential accommodation, electricity and other household necessities. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in granting maintenance without due consideration of the fact that the non-applicants are residing in the house constructed by the applicant and their essential expenses are 4 already being borne by him. He contends that the learned Court has not correctly assessed the actual income and financial capacity of the applicant and has passed the impugned order in a mechanical and arbitrary manner without taking into account the liabilities and financial burdens upon the applicant. It is also submitted that the allegations of cruelty and harassment levelled by non-applicant No.1 are false, exaggerated and unsupported by any cogent evidence, yet the same have been relied upon without proper scrutiny. Further, it is argued that there was no sufficient material on record to justify the quantum of maintenance awarded and, considering that the applicant is already incurring substantial expenses towards the maintenance of the non-applicants, the direction to pay additional maintenance is unjustified. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has passed a well-reasoned and legally sound order. The learned Court has rightly appreciated that the relationship between the parties as husband, wife and minor children is undisputed, and accordingly, the applicant is under a statutory, moral and social obligation to maintain the non- applicants. The learned Court has further taken into account the fact that although the non-applicants are residing in the house constructed by the applicant and certain basic expenses such as electricity and household necessities are being borne by him, the 5 same cannot absolve the applicant of his responsibility to provide adequate monetary maintenance. The quantum of Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the non-applicants, totaling Rs.6,000/- per month, has been determined after considering the status of the parties, their standard of living and the overall circumstances of the case, and the same cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. Thus, the impugned order reflects proper application of mind and judicious exercise of discretion by the learned Family Court. 6. Considering the submission 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan