1 2026:CGHC:2786 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 365 of 2023 1 - Smt. Malti Sahu W/o Deepak Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Aaokhkhar, P. S. Pachpedhi Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village Darri, Post Hatranka, P. S. And Tahsil Than Khamhariya, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Saumya Sahu D/o Deepak Sahu Aged About 2 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Malti Sahu, R/o Village Aaokhkhar, P. S. Pachpedhi Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village Darri, Post Hatranka, P. S. And Tahsil Than Khamhariya, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Deepak Sahu S/o Basawan Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Aaokhkhar, P. S. Pachpedhi Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Krishna Nagar, Lucknow, District Lucknow U. P. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: 1.“It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be allow the revision and set aside the impugned order KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 dated 20/2/23 (Annexure A-1) in the interest of justice and enhance the maintenance amount of applicant No. 2 2. Any other relief/ reliefs which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the lights of facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant No.1 and the non- applicant No.1 are legally wedded wife and husband respectively, who were married according to Hindu customs and traditions about six years ago and out of the said wedlock one female child, applicant No.2, was born. It is stated that after marriage the parties lived peacefully and happily, however, in the year 2022 the applicant No.1 was compelled to live separately on account of cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the non-applicant and his family members, due to which she filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance before the learned Family Court concerned. 4. Upon receipt of notice, the non-applicant filed his written statement alleging that the applicant No.1 did not want to reside with him, used to quarrel on petty issues and was allegedly living in adultery. 5. The Learned Family Court concerned after due appreciation and the evidence available on record, passed the impugned order dated 20.02.2023, whereby partly allowed the application filed by the applicants and it was directed the non-applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month to the applicant No.1 and Rs. 1000/- per month to the applicant No.2/minor, Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the learned Family Court has committed a manifest error by not properly considering the 3 documentary evidence produced by the applicants regarding the income of the non-applicant and by granting an inadequate maintenance amount to applicant No.2. The learned Family Court further failed to appreciate that applicant No.1 is legally entitled to maintenance as there is no cogent evidence or documentary proof on record to establish that she is living in adultery and no such proof has been adduced by the non-applicant. The learned Family Court also erred in law by ignoring the mandatory requirement of filing an afÏdavit of income, assets and liabilities by the non-applicant, which was never submitted. The reliance placed by the learned Court on certain photographs to conclude adultery is wholly erroneous, as there is no evidence to show the period, authenticity or relevance of the said photographs. The learned Family Court further failed to consider the rising cost of living and day-to-day expenses and the fact that applicant No.1 is maintaining herself and the minor girl child while living separately for justifiable reasons, which entitles the applicants to enhanced maintenance. The impugned order further suffers from non- application of mind as the learned Court relied upon bald, unsubstantiated statements of the non-applicant while ignoring the oral and documentary evidence led by the applicants. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, the maintenance awarded to applicant No.2 deserves enhancement and maintenance ought to have been granted to applicant No.1, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be modified. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 4 8. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 20.02.2023, it transpires that the learned Family Court has duly considered the pleadings of the parties as well as the oral and documentary evidence available on record and thereafter partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of CrPC. The learned Family Court, after proper appreciation of evidence, granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to applicant No.2/minor, which cannot be said to be inadequate or on the lower side considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on correct appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal