1 2026:CGHC:6301 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 166 of 2026 Sanjay Pathak @ Sheelnath Pathak S/o Mahadev Pathak Aged About 46 Years R/o Nayamuda, Ambedkar Ward Tiranga Square, Jagdalpur, P S Bodhgath, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Poonam Pathak @ Munni Pathak W/o Sanjay Pathak @ Sheelnath Aged About 44 Years R/o Nayamuda, Ambedkar Ward Tiranga Square, Jagdalpur, P S Bodhgath, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.02.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay in 8ling the revision. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned. 3. This criminal revision has been 8led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Criminal RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Revision and set aside the impugned order dated 01/10/2025 (Annexure A/1), passed the Learned Family Court Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G) in Misc. MJC No. 174/2024, in the interest of justice.” 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent, being the legally wedded wife of the applicant, 8led an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of maintenance, along with an application for interim maintenance, pleading that their marriage was solemnized on 15.04.1996 and three children were born out of the wedlock, out of whom one has expired. It was alleged that after marriage the applicant and his family members subjected the respondent to cruelty, harassment, quarrel, and physical assault in connection with dowry demands and ultimately, in November 2018, she was beaten and driven out of the matrimonial house, compelling her to initiate proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act wherein maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month was awarded but not regularly paid by the applicant. The respondent further asserted that the applicant owns and operates a highway family dhaba at Gidam Road, Pandripani, Jagdalpur, earns substantial monthly income therefrom along with rental income from a four-wheeler and house property at Sukma, and therefore sought maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The applicant, while admitting the marriage and birth of children, denied the allegations of cruelty and contended that the respondent herself behaved in a cruel and 3 abusive manner, assaulted his mother, made false allegations, and that he has no connection with the alleged dhaba business, rather he is burdened with vehicle loan, gold loan for his son’s education, medical ailments including BP, diabetes, high cholesterol and spondylitis, and weak 8nancial condition due to sale of his properties. Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence, earning capacity of the applicant, the amount awarded in earlier proceedings, non-payment thereof, and the age and circumstances of the respondent, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month to the respondent from the date of application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been 8led. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court in Misc. MJC No. 174/2024, directing the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month to the non-applicant, is excessive, illegal, and contrary to the material available on record. It is submitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.04.1996 according to Hindu rites and customs and two children were born out of the wedlock, both of whom are presently residing with the applicant and are wholly dependent upon him for their education, medical treatment, and day-to-day expenses. Although the non- applicant is residing separately, the applicant has been regularly contributing towards her expenses even prior to the impugned order and has been paying Rs.7,000/- per month towards her house rent 4 and Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance; however, the learned Trial Court failed to consider and adjust the said payments in light of the law laid down in Rajnesh vs. Neha, and mechanically awarded additional maintenance, resulting in duplication of liability and severe 8nancial hardship to the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is the sole caretaker and guardian of the minor children and bears their entire 8nancial responsibility, and therefore the impugned order, being arbitrary, excessive, and not in consonance with the 8nancial capacity of the applicant, deserves to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court directing the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month is just, proper, and in accordance with law. The learned Court has duly taken note that the respondent, being the legally wedded wife of the applicant, was subjected to cruelty, harassment, and physical assault on account of dowry demands and was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial house in November 2018, compelling her to seek legal protection and maintenance, and despite an earlier order granting maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month, the applicant failed to make regular payment. The learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, evidence on record, earning capacity of the applicant, the previous maintenance proceedings, 5 the non-payment thereof, and the age and circumstances of the respondent, has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in partly allowing the application and awarding a modest and reasonable sum of Rs.4,500/- per month, which cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 8nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in8rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certi8ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan