1 2026:CGHC:2794 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 178 of 2023 1 - Smt. Hemalata Sahu W/o Shri Parmeshwar Aged About 30 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 26 Years In The Cause Title) R/o Village Newarikala, P.S. And Tehsil Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Yashkumar S/o Shri Parmeshwar Sahu Aged About 7 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 3 Years In The Cause Title) R/o Village Newarikala, P.S. And Tehsil Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Riya D/o Shri Parmeshwar Sahu Aged About 6 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 105 Years In Cause Title) Minor Through Their Mother Applicant No. 01 Smt. Hemalata Sahu, W/o Shri Parmeshwar Sahu, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Newarikala, P.S. And Tehsil Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Shri Parmeshwar Sahu S/o Jhumuklal Sahu Aged About 34 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 30 Years), R/o Village Bajrangpur, Nawagaon, Ward No.2, In Front Of Hanuman Mandir, Concrete Road, Rajnandgaon, P.S. And District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the impugned by the judgment dated 19.01.2023, passed by Judge, Family Court, Balod, District Balod (C.G.), passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 168/2019, may kindly be set-aside and the maintenance awarded to the applicants may kindly be enhanced, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for applicant No.01 and Rs.5,000/- per month each for applicants No.02 and 03, stating that the marriage between applicant No.01 and the respondent was solemnized on 21.05.2013 at Village Newarikala in accordance with customary rites, and that two children were born out of the said wedlock. It was alleged that after marriage the respondent subjected applicant No.01 to mental and physical cruelty, and despite intervention by members of the society in the year 2017, the respondent again started harassing her and ultimately left the applicants at the matrimonial home on 10.02.2017 and never took them back. The applicants further stated that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are pending against the respondent. The respondent filed his reply denying the allegations and contended that applicant No.01 left the matrimonial home on her own along with the children, that an ex parte decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been passed in his favour, and that he is the sole earning member of the family. After 3 recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Court below, vide impugned judgment dated 19.01.2023, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.01 and Rs.1,000/- per month each to applicants No.02 and 03, against which the present revision petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Court below has failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence on record and has awarded an inadequate amount of maintenance, which is wholly insufÏcient for the applicants to lead a dignified and normal life. It is contended that the statements of the parties clearly establish that the applicants have no independent source of income, yet the learned Court did not give due weight to the same and passed the impugned order in violation of the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. The impugned order is thus assailed as being illegal, perverse, and arbitrary, inasmuch as the learned Court failed to strike a proper balance between the needs of the applicants and the earning capacity of the respondent, who is admittedly the earning member and legally bound to maintain the applicants. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has not applied the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in their true letter and spirit and has also failed to consider the fact that applicant No.01 is unable to maintain herself and her two children, despite the respondent’s obligation to do so, as well as the circumstance that the respondent himself had initiated matrimonial proceedings which 4 culminated in a compromise. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Balod, District- Balod, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after carefully considering the pleadings of the parties, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, and taking into account the respective contentions regarding marriage, separation, income, and liabilities, has rightly passed the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2023. The learned Court has exercised its judicial discretion in a fair and balanced manner and has correctly partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by awarding reasonable maintenance to applicant No.01 and the minor applicants No.02 and 03, keeping in view the material available on record and the financial capacity of the respondent. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law. 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 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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