1 2026:CGHC:19314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 538 of 2026 Suman Sahu S/o Samaru Ram Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Chatai Sheet, Ward No. 07 Near The Shambhu Annnas Home Ahiwara, P.S. Nandini Nagar, Distt.- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Tikeshwari Sahu W/o Suman Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Ahead Of Santoshi Chowk, Thakur Dev Chowk, Village- Murmunda, P.S.- Nandini Nagar, Distt.- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Sushmita Sahu D/o Suman Sahu Aged About 10 Years Through Her Legal Guardian (Mother) Non Applicant No. 1, Smt. Tikeshwari Sahu, W/o Suman Sahu, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ahead Of Santoshi Chowk, Thakur Dev Chowk, Village- Murmunda, P.S.- Nandini Nagar, Distt.- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Tripati Sahu D/o Suman Sahu Aged About 9 Years Through Her Legal Guardian (Mother) Non Applicant No. 1, Smt. Tikeshwari Sahu, W/o Suman Sahu, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ahead Of Santoshi Chowk, Thakur Dev Chowk, Village- Murmunda, P.S.- Nandini Nagar, Distt.- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Nitesh Sahu S/o Suman Sahu Aged About 4 Years Through Her Legal Guardian (Mother) Non Applicant No. 1, Smt. Tikeshwari Sahu, W/o Suman Sahu, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ahead Of Santoshi Chowk, Thakur Dev Chowk, Village- Murmunda, P.S.- Nandini Nagar, Distt.- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Srivastav, Advocate RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.04.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “1. The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside /quashed the order dated 03/02/2026 passed in criminal MJC No. 1250/2024 by the principal judge family court Durg. Distt. durg Chhattisgarh in the interest of justice. 2. Any other relief this Hon'ble High Court deems fit.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the non-applicant No.1/wife has filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS seeking maintenance from the present applicant, stating that her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 13.05.2013 at village Murmunda, District Durg, as per Hindu rites and customs, and out of the said wedlock, three children, namely Sushmita Sahu (born on 06.10.2014), Tripati Sahu (born on 07.09.2016) and Nitesh Sahu (born on 03.10.2019), were born. It is alleged by the non-applicant that after about five years of marriage, the applicant started consuming liquor and subjected her to cruelty, abuse and physical assault on account of insufÏcient dowry, and also sold her ornaments and demanded further dowry, and thereafter developed relations with another woman and ultimately ousted her from the 3 matrimonial home, due to which she is residing at her parental house along with her children without any source of income and claimed maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month, stating that the applicant is a truck driver earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. During the pendency of the said application, she also filed an application for interim maintenance. The applicant filed his reply denying all allegations and contended that the non-applicant herself left the matrimonial home without any sufÏcient cause, has relations with another person namely Sanjay Sahu, and despite efforts including a social meeting dated 17.09.2024, she refused to return, and further alleged that she is earning by working at a construction site and had taken all her belongings while leaving. It was also submitted that the applicant is suffering from liver disease, has no sufÏcient income, and is dependent on his aged parents. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application for interim maintenance and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the applicants, totaling Rs.4,000/- as interim maintenance. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned interim order passed by the learned Family Court is harsh, illegal and liable to be set aside, as the Court below has failed to properly appreciate the material available on record. It is contended that the non- applicant has herself left the matrimonial home voluntarily, taking all her belongings in the absence of the applicant, and was persistently pressurizing the applicant to live separately from his aged parents, 4 which he refused, and therefore, she chose to leave on her own accord. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has not considered that the applicant is suffering from liver disease, is unable to earn, and is also burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his old and ailing parents, and in such circumstances, directing him to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance is unjustified. He further submits that the applicant made sincere efforts to bring back the non-applicant, including approaching her and convening a social meeting, but she refused to return and even extended threats of false implication. It is also contended that the Court below has failed to consider these crucial aspects and the overall conduct of the non-applicant, and thus, the impugned order deserves to 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 rightly appreciated the material available on record while passing the impugned order of interim maintenance. The record reflects that the marital relationship between the parties and the paternity of three minor children are undisputed, and the non-applicant/wife, having no independent source of income, is residing separately along with the children. The learned Family Court, after taking into account the rival submissions of both parties, including the allegations and counter-allegations, has exercised its discretion judiciously in awarding a modest sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the non-applicants, totaling Rs.4,000/- as interim 5 maintenance, which cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable in any manner. The contention of the applicant regarding his alleged illness and financial incapacity has been duly considered, however, the statutory obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and minor children cannot be overlooked. Thus, the impugned order reflects a balanced and reasoned approach. 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