1 2026:CGHC:648 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 2 of 2026 Ku. Manushri Das (Minor) D/o Sushant Das Aged About 11 Years Wali Mother Hemlata Bhar, W/o Shri Sushant Das, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ayodhya Nagar, Ward No. 04, Nearby Good Shepard School, Mahasamund, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund C.G. Pin 493445, Mb 7999413218. ... Applicant versus Shri Sushant Das S/o Shri Surendra Das Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Kosrangi, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur C.G. ---- respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) in MJC No. 1047/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, in place of Rs. 40,000/- granted only Rs. 1,000/- to the applicant as interim maintenance. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the date of Marriage is 05/05/2011 of respondent/father Sushant Das and mother Hemlata Bhar is inter cast marriage, the respondent/father Sushant Das is belonging to OBC/Kewat And mother Hemlata Bhar is belonging to SC (Schedule Cast Ganda). It is admitted fact that applicant Ku.Manushri Das is the daughter from the legally wedded wife. That during the wedlock period of respondent/father Sushant Das and mother Hemlata Bhar, the present applicant Ku. Manushri Das born on dated 28/05/2012. Due to misunderstanding and quarrel between the husband-wife the mother Hemlata Bhar of the applicant and father/respondent Sushant Das are living separately since July 2016. The present applicant daughter of respondent Sushant Das is living separately with her mother. Present respondent/father Sushant Das not taking care by any type nor legally maintaining his daughter the present applicant Ku. Manushri Das. Her total expenses bearing by the mother, although the father is capable and earning amount through the business (Welding Shop with his father Shri Surendra Das). Shri Surendra Das is the grand-father of the present applicant. The father/respondent Sushant Das has also sufficient agriculture land, which is ancestor land about 3.5 acre village Mat Kharora Kosrangi and also house in this agriculture land. Moreover respondent/father Sushant Das have also big Double Manzil house at Housing Board Colony Dondekala, from which he earning. The present applicant filed the case under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance sum of rupees Rs. 43,000/- with School Fee on the facts mentioned in the application. The present applicant also filed interim maintenance application dated 27/09/2023. 4. The respondent denied the allegations and filed his reply to the 3 application for grant of interim maintenance. The learned Family Court after considering the pleadings of the respective parties and the evidence adduced by them, granted a meager amount of Rs.1000/- for the applicant/minor daughter as interim maintenance in place of Rs. 40,000/-. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant happens to be the minor daughter of the respondent and the learned Family Court passed the interim order dated 30.10.2025 and allowed the maintenance application to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month is very lower side without considering the facts of the case, that since from July 2016 not given any type of assistance and economic assistance and also school education for the bright future of his own legal minor daughter, and the daughter is trying to study and the respondent has sufficient source of income and has liability to maintain his own minr daughter for her bright future, thus, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, erroneous, and the same is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the orders of the trial Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and facts and circumstances of the case the learned Family Court concerned has passed the impugned order, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 8. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 4 9. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, preferably within a period of two months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar