1 2026:CGHC:6009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No.170 of 2026 Rajkishore Soni S/o Lt. Shri Jugalkishore Soni Aged About 39 Years R/o Sonar Para, Ward No. 33, Rajnandgaon Tahsil Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Applicant/ (Non - Applicant Before The Learned Family Court), ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Megha Soni W/o Shri Rajkishore Soni Aged About 37 Years, R/o House Of Shri Vinod Agrawal, Behind Maharashtrian Teli Bhawan, Ashwani Nagar, Police Station Purani Basti, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) Applicant/ (Non - Applicant Before The Learned Family Court), 2 - Divyansh Soni, Aged About 8 Years, Minor Is Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Megha Soni, R/o House Of Shri Vinod Agrawal, Behind Maharashtrian Teli Bhawan, Ashwani Nagar, Police Station Purani Basti, Tahsil and District- Raipur (C.G.), ... Respondents For Applicant For Respondents : : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate None Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.02.2026 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in MCC No.183/2025, whereby the application under Section 144 of 2 BNSS, 2023 filed by the applicant No.1/ wife (respondent No.1) has been partly allowed and it has been directed that the non-applicant/husband (applicant herein) shall pay maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month (Rs.7,000/- to non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs.1,000/- to non-applicant No.2/son herein per month). Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, this revision has been filed. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage between the Applicant/husband and Respondent No.1/wife was solemnized on 13.06.2012 at Raipur as per Hindu rites. From the wedlock, they were blessed with a son, Divyansh Soni (Respondent No.2), born on 18.12.2015. After marriage, it is alleged that the Applicant was a habitual drinker and used to abuse and assault Respondent No.1 under the influence of alcohol. Despite being aware that Respondent No.1 was vegetarian, the Applicant allegedly forced her to consume non-vegetarian food and alcohol and assaulted her upon protest. Due to frequent disputes, they were once ousted from the matrimonial home and thereafter lived in rented premises, where the Applicant’s behavior allegedly remained unchanged. In the year 2020, when Respondent No.1 was unwell, the Applicant allegedly assaulted her, causing injury to her right hand. A complaint was made to emergency number 112, and a case was registered. The matter was later compromised. Subsequently, the Applicant again started quarrelling and assaulting Respondent No.1 and left them to reside at his father’s house. Since then, the Respondents have been living separately in a rented accommodation. It is alleged that the 3 Applicant failed to maintain them despite having sufficient income from electrical contracting, rental property, and agriculture. 3. On these grounds, the Respondents/Non-Applicants filed an application under Section 144 BNSS, 2023. The Applicant did not file any reply and remained ex-parte. Vide order dated 07.11.2025, the learned Family Court allowed the application and directed the Applicant/husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month (Rs. 7,000/- to Non-Applicant No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- to Non-Applicant No.2). Aggrieved by the said order, the Applicant has preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents available on record. He further submits that learned Family Court erred in proceeding ex-parte on 24.07.2025. The Applicant was not provided a sufficient or reasonable opportunity to present his case, leading to a one-sided appreciation of facts that has caused a miscarriage of justice. The learned Family Court arbitrarily accepted the Non- Applicant's oral testimony regarding the income of the Applicant without a shred of documentary evidence. Though the applicant is drawing a salary of INR 57,000/- but is paying monthly installments of his loans to the tune of INR 35,000/- per month and he not only bears the responsibility to serve his family but also bears the treatment expenses of his old age parents. It is also worth stating here that the trial court also failed to appreciate that the respondents in her cross-examination has admitted that the said loans were 4 obtained when she was residing along with the applicant and despite that without appreciating the same, hefty amount has been awarded as final maintenance towards the wrongdoer wife. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court be set- aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the order passed by the learned Family Court and the other documents available on record. 6. From perusal of the evidence available on record and further on perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 (Respondent No.1 & Respondent No.2 herein) are the wife and son of the applicant/husband respectively and they are living separately from the applicant/husband due to sufficient reasons and applicant No.1 is not capable of maintaining herself and they were successful in proving their application for maintenance. As far as the maintenance amount is concerned, the learned Family Court after considering the social and economic status of the applicant No.1/wife and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has passed the impugned order by providing maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/- per month to applicant No.1/wife and Rs.1,000/- to applicant No.2/son per month, which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned 5 order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti