1 2026:CGHC:706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 588 of 2022 1 - Smt. Jyoti Ratre W/o Sunil Ratre Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Giraudhpuri, P.S. Kasdol, Chowki - Giraudhpuri, Dist.- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) Present Address- Vill.- Barda, Chowki Lawan, P.S. Kasdol Dist.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Minor Ku. Dimpal Ratre D/o Sunil Ratre, Presently Aged About 04 Years, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jyoti Ratre R/o Village - Giraudhpuri, P.S. Kasdol, Chowki - Giraudhpuri, Dist.- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) Present Address- Vill.- Barda, Chowki Lawan, P.S. Kasdol Dist.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Sunil Ratre S/o Late Shri Mulchand Ratre Aged About 26 Years R/o Vill- Giraudhpuri, Chowki-Giraudhpuri P.S. Kasdol, Dist.- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 06.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and may kindly be pleased to award at least Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing of application U/s 125 of Criminal Procedure Code with interest, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between applicant No.1 (wife) and the non-applicant/Respondent was solemnized in the month of January, 2017 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, applicant No.1 resided at her matrimonial home. Out of the said wedlock, applicant No.2 (minor daughter) was born on 11.11.2017. After the marriage, applicant No.1 was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty by the non-applicant and his family members. The non-applicant and his family members persistently harassed applicant No.1 on account of unlawful demand of dowry. The non-applicant is a habitual drinker and, under the influence of alcohol, he assaulted applicant No.1 on several occasions. Without any just or sufÏcient cause, the non-applicant forcibly ousted the applicants from the matrimonial home. Thereafter, family members of applicant No.1 convened a social meeting, wherein the non-applicant assured that he would not subject the applicants to any physical or mental cruelty 3 and took them back to the matrimonial home. However, in the month of September, 2020, the non-applicant again forcibly expelled the applicants from his house. Since then, the applicants have been residing at their parental home. The applicant No.1 approached the Family Counselling Centre, District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), wherein on 21.01.2021, the non-applicant gave a written assurance that he would not torture the applicants in any manner and took them back with him. Despite the said assurance, the non-applicant again subjected applicant No.1 to cruelty, compelling the applicants to live separately. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stating that due to the above acts of cruelty, they are residing at their parental house. It was further pleaded that the non-applicant is the owner of a Fancy Store earning approximately ₹50,000/- per month and is also possessed of agricultural land from which he earns about ₹3,00,000/- per annum. On the other hand, applicant No.1 has no independent source of income and is entirely dependent upon her parental family for her survival and that of her minor daughter. Therefore, the applicants claimed maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month. 4. Upon service of notice, the non-applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his reply, denying all the allegations except the marriage and birth of the minor daughter. The non- applicant alleged that applicant No.1 is residing separately without sufÏcient cause and claimed that he made efforts to bring the applicants back. He further made false allegations of cruelty against 4 applicant No.1 and alleged that she threatened to implicate him in false criminal cases. On these grounds, the non-applicant contended that applicant No.1 is not entitled to maintenance and prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. After framing the issues and considering the evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 18.04.2022 rejected the maintenance claim of applicant No. 1 and partly allowed the claim of applicant No. 2, granting a maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the impugned order is illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. The learned Family Court failed to consider the statements of witnesses, documentary evidence and the financial capacity of the non-applicant. The Family Court further failed to appreciate that during the pendency of the maintenance proceedings, the non- applicant took applicant No.1 with him and during that period made an attempt on her life by pouring kerosene oil over her body, thereby creating a serious threat to her life and limb. The applicants had sufÏcient and reasonable cause to live separately, as residing with the non-applicant posed grave danger to their safety. The learned Family Court also failed to consider the settled principle that a wife and minor child are entitled to maintenance commensurate with the income of the husband, ordinarily to the extent of around 25% of his income. He further submits that the impugned order rejecting the maintenance claim of applicant No.1 and granting a meagre amount 5 to applicant No.2 suffers from gross illegality, material irregularity and miscarriage of justice. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submit that the learned Family Court has gravely erred in fixing a meagre amount of maintenance in favour of Applicant No.2, which is wholly inadequate considering her tender age, daily needs, proper upbringing and overall development. It is submitted that the learned Family Court failed to consider the actual income and social status of the non- applicant, who is earning about ₹70,000/- per month, and ignored the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that ordinarily 25% of the husband’s income constitutes just and reasonable maintenance and that the wife is entitled to live with the same dignity and standard of living as that of her husband. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants have no independent source of income and are wholly dependent upon the non-applicant for their livelihood, and the Family Court failed to appreciate the conduct and intention of the non-applicant, who is deliberately avoiding his legal and moral obligation to maintain the applicants. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that an amount of ₹3,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance to applicant No. 2 (the daughter). At the same time, the application of applicant No. 1 (the wife) was rejected on the ground that she is living separately from the non- 6 applicant without any just and sufÏcient reason. In such circumstances, applicant No. 1 is not entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant. It appears that the learned Family Court, upon proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting maintenance solely to the minor child, considering his dependent status and the legal obligation of the father to maintain her. The absence of any finding or relief in favor of applicant No. 1 indicates that the Court did not find sufÏcient grounds to allow her claim for maintenance, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be either erroneous or unjustified. 10.Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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 concerned. 11.Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12.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/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal