1 2026:CGHC:4494 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 634 of 2023 1. Smt. Reena Hastgen W/o Shri Gautam Hastgen Aged About 40 Years Caste Domar (Harijan) And R/o New Miners Colony, Bhatgaon, P.S. Bhatgaon, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Aaliya Hastgen D/o Shri Gautam Hastgen Aged About 14 Years Through The Guardian Mother Smt. Reena Hastgen, W/o Shri Gautam Hastgen (applicant No. 1), Caste Domar (Harijan) And R/o New Miners Colony, Bhatgaon, P.S. Bhatgaon, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Gautam Hastgen S/o Late Mohan Hastgen Aged About 45 Years Caste Domar (Harijan), Occupation Service, R/o New Mines Colony, Bhatgaon, P.S. Bhatgaon, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikas Ghritlahre on behalf of Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Family Court, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.225/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants and granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to applicant No.2. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.01.29 11:02:20 +0530 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the revisioners filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance against the respondent, asserting that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and applicant No.2 is their daughter born out of a 13-year-long wedlock, and that both were deserted and neglected by the respondent. It was pleaded that during cohabitation the respondent subjected applicant No.1 to mental and physical cruelty by habitually abusing and assaulting her and by keeping a concubine named Ritu Das, which made it impossible for her to reside with him and compelled her to leave the matrimonial home along with applicant No.2 and take shelter at her parental house. It was further alleged that despite having sufÏcient means, the respondent refused and neglected to maintain the applicants, leaving them with no option but to approach the Court for maintenance. The learned Family Court, after hearing the parties on merits, partly allowed the application by holding that applicant No.1 was not entitled to maintenance, while granting only a meagre amount of Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2, and being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has committed material irregularities and illegality of grave magnitude while passing the impugned order, inasmuch as it has erroneously held that applicant No.1 (wife) is not entitled to maintenance, contrary to the settled position of law that a husband is under a statutory obligation to maintain his wife, and that such entitlement does not cease merely on the ground that she is residing either in the SECL quarter allotted to the respondent or at her parental home. It is further submitted that the learned Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary 3 evidence led by both the parties and has drawn an erroneous conclusion regarding the justification of the applicnt No.1 in living separately, despite clear evidence on record establishing that the respondent is residing with his concubine, which made it impossible and unsafe for the applicant No.1 to continue cohabitation and to keep her daughter in such an environment. The learned Family Court has further erred in attributing cruelty to the applicant No.1 without any cogent or reliable evidence and, on that unfounded premise, has wrongly denied her maintenance. Lastly, while fixing maintenance for applicant No.2, the learned Court failed to consider the realistic needs of a teenage child, as an amount of merely Rs.2,000/- per month is wholly inadequate to meet even the basic necessities, let alone expenses towards education, healthcare and other essential requirements, rendering the impugned order unsustainable. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to applicant No.2 observing that the allegation of the applicant keeping Ritu Das as his wife was not proved and that she was merely an ofÏce colleague, and further found that applicant No.1 had voluntarily abandoned the matrimonial home and was living separately without sufÏcient cause due to her own conduct in subjecting the respondent to cruelty and mental harassment by repeatedly suspecting him of illicit relationships. The Court further noted that the respondent, being a salaried employee of 4 Nagar Panchayat with limited income and health-related expenses, was not in a position to pay a higher amount, and while holding that applicant No.1 was not entitled to maintenance, granted a modest sum of Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2, a minor daughter aged about 13 years, considering her dependency and welfare, thereby partially allowing the application under Section 125 CrPC. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek