1 2026:CGHC:7379 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1224 of 2024 Smt. Anupa W/o Shri Rajkumar Sonwni, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Kamalpur, Police Station-Surajpur, Tahsil And District-Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Rajkumar Sonwani S/o Shri Ramsai, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village-Karji, Police Station Patna, Tahsil-Baikunthpur, District-Korea (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. None appeared on behalf of respondent when the case is called out of hearing. 2. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to modify the order dated 02.09.2024, (ANNEXURE P-1), passed by the Learned Family Court, Surajpur, District: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.11 15:05:33 +0530 2 Surajpur (C.G.), [Presided over by Shri Santosh Sharma), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 230/2019, and enhance the maintenance award amount in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 4. 5. Facts of the case are that applicant had instituted an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the respondent (Rs. 15,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 5,000/- per month for her daughter), on the ground that the applicant and the respondent are legally wedded husband and wife, having solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock, a girl child namely Ku. Purnima was born. After some time of marriage, the respondent started harassing the applicant on account of dowry demands. Due to such harassment, the applicant, along with her daughter, was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and is presently residing with her parents. It is further submitted that the applicant has no independent source of income to maintain herself and her daughter. The applicant further submitted that the respondent has solemnized a second marriage with one lady namely Krishna. The respondent has sufÏcient income to maintain himself as well as the applicant and their daughter. Hence, the applicant sought maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month for herself and her daughter, Ku. Purnima. 6. The respondent filed his reply and denied the averments made in the application, except admitting the fact of marriage. 7. The learned Family Court, after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties, passed the order dated 02.09.2024, whereby it awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month in favour of the Applicant and rejected the prayer for maintenance for her daughter on the ground that the applicant failed to specifically prove the allegations of 3 harassment made against the respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. Learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to the harassment and cruelty inflicted upon her by the respondent. He further submits that the learned Family Court awarded maintenance in favour of the applicant at an amount which is inadequate and not commensurate with her financial condition and needs, and is therefore contrary to law. He also submits that applicant, by way of cogent evidence, has sufÏciently proved the acts of cruelty committed by the respondent, due to which she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home along with her daughter. Thus, there was sufÏcient cause for her to live separately, and in view of the provisions of law, she is legally entitled to maintenance. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. The Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 2500/- to the present applicant. The Court considered the income, social, and economic status of both parties and the current price index, and the award cannot be said to be on the lower side. 11. 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 learned Family Court 4 has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (RameshSinha) Chief Justice Abhishek