1 2026:CGHC:2798 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1056 of 2023 1 - Smt. Bharti Bai W/o Shri Pitamber Das Bharti Aged About 43 Years R/o Behind Kali Mandir, Near Helath Centre, Devpuri, Police Station- Tikrapara, Post- Devpuri, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Khileshwari Bharti D/o Shri Pitamber Das Bharti Aged About 3 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Bharti Bai, R/o Behind Kali Mandir, Near Helath Centre, Devpuri, Police Station- Tikrapara, Post- Devpuri, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicants versus Pitamber Das Bharti S/o Late Parik Ram Bharti Aged About 45 Years R/o Village-Doma, Ward No. 2, Doma-1, Post- Sejbahar, Polie Station- Mujgahan, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant Along with CRR No. 575 of 2023 Pitambar Das Bharti S/o Late Shri Parik Ram Bharti Aged About 47 Years At Present Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Doma, Ward No. 02, Doma-1 Post Sejbahar, P.S. Mujgan, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant Versus 1 - Smt. Bharti Bai W/o Pitambar Das Bharti Aged About 45 Years R/o C/o Smt. Bharti Bai, Behind Kali Mandir, Near Health Centre, Davpuri P.S. Tikrapara, Post Devpuri Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2 - Ku. Khileshweri Bharti D/o Shri Pitambar Das Bharti Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Mother R/o C/o Smt. Bharti Bai R/o Behind Kali Mandir, Near Health Centre, Devpuri P.S. Tikrapara Post Devpuri Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicants In CRR No. 1056 of 2023 For Applicant : Mr. Pradeep Singh Rathore, Advocate In CRR No. 575 of 2023 For Applicant : None For Non-applicants : Mr. Pradeep Singh Rathore, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. None appears nor any representation made on behalf of the husband to press this revision on repeated calls. 2. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been filed against the same order, they are being decided of by this common order. 3. In the present case, an application for maintenance was filed on behalf of the wife, Smt. Bharti Bai and daughter Ku. Khileshwari Bharti. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur vide order dated 10.04.2023, partly allowed the application and directed the husband, Pitambar Das Bharti, to pay Rs. 5000/- towards maintenance of the daughter Ku. Khileshwari Bharti and rejected the application on behalf of the wife, Smt. Bharti Bai. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Bharti Bai and daughter Ku. Khileshwari Bharti, filed Criminal Revision No. 1056/2023, contending that the 3 amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably the maintenance amount in favour of daughter and award maintenance in favour of the wife. On the other hand, the husband, Pitambar Das Bharti, filed Criminal Revision No. 575/2023, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 4. Mr. Pradeep Singh Rathore, learned counsel appearing for wife and daughter, would submit that the impugned order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Family Court erred in holding, without any cogent evidence, that wife is not the legally wedded wife of the Pitambar Das Bharti, ignoring the fact that the marriage between them was a love marriage solemnized before a temple in the year 2012, after which they continuously lived together as husband and wife. He further submits that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the settled legal position that even a woman in a long- standing live-in relationship is entitled to claim maintenance, and that wife, having cohabited with the husband for a considerable period, has acquired the status of wife and is entitled to maintenance. It is further submitted that daughter is a school-going girl requiring expenses towards education, food, clothing, uniform, tuition, and transportation, and in the present scenario of rising prices, the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- awarded is grossly inadequate. He further submits that Smt. Bharti Bai is a housewife 4 with no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself, whereas the husband is financially sound, working as a contractor, owning agricultural land at Village Raksa, and earning rental income, with a total monthly income of about Rs.1,25,000/-. The learned Family Court, therefore, committed a grave error in rejecting the claim of wife on the ground that she is not a legally wedded wife, and failed to appreciate that the applicants, being the wife and child of the non-applicant, are entitled to maintenance commensurate with the status and standard of living of the non- applicant. Therefore, the maintenance amount deserves to be set- aside/reduced suitably. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the husband and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the wife and daughter before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance and after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 10.04.2023, whereby partly allowed the application and directed the husband, Pitambar Das Bharti, to pay Rs. 5000/- towards maintenance of the daughter Ku. Khileshwari Bharti and rejected the application on behalf of the wife, Smt. Bharti Bai. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Bharti Bai and daughter Ku. Khileshwari Bharti, filed Criminal Revision No. 1056/2023, contending that the 5 amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably the maintenance amount in favour of daughter and award maintenance in favour of the wife. On the other hand, the husband, Pitambar Das Bharti, filed Criminal Revision No. 575/2023, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revisions and finding recorded by learned Family Court while partly allowing the application and directed the husband, Pitambar Das Bharti, to pay Rs. 5000/- towards maintenance of the daughter Ku. Khileshwari Bharti and rejected the application on behalf of the wife, Smt. Bharti Bai. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to and are accordingly dismissed. 9. A copy of this order as well as original record of this case be sent to learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan