1 2026:CGHC:2747 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 85 of 2026 1 - Pooja W/o Tulsi Ram Aged About 30 Years Caste Panika, R/o- Village Devnagar, Police Station- Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Sukhdev S/o Tulsi Ram Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Pooja W/o Tulsi Ram, Caste Panika, R/o- Village Devnagar, Police Station- Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Purnima D/o Tulsi Ram Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Pooja W/o Tulsi Ram, Caste Panika, R/o- Village Devnagar, Police Station- Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Tulsi Ram S/o Hawalsay Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Tendua, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur (C.G.) in Criminal M.J.C. No.241/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.1 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent were married on 13.05.2011 as per Hindu rites. They lived together at the respondent’s house and were blessed with two children, namely Sukhdev (10 years) and Poornima (8 years). After 2–3 years of marriage, the respondent became a habitual alcoholic and subjected the applicant to physical and mental cruelty, due to which she was ultimately thrown out of the matrimonial home in July 2024. The applicant thereafter started residing at Village Devnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) and approached the Women Family Counselling Centre, Surajpur, where the respondent assured to take her back but failed to do so. Having no source of income, the applicant filed an application for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The respondent opposed the application by denying the allegations and claiming that the 3 applicant left the house voluntarily. Vide order dated 14.10.2025, the Learned Family Court, Surajpur, partly allowed the application and awarded a meager maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month, which is insufficient for the applicant’s livelihood. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the maintenance amount, the applicant has filed the present revision petition for enhancement of maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month awarded by the learned Family Court, Surajpur is grossly inadequate and illegal, as it fails to meet the basic needs of the applicant. The applicant is unemployed and, after being thrown out of the matrimonial home, is entirely dependent upon her parents for survival. Such a meager amount disentitles the applicant from maintaining herself with dignity and defeats the very purpose of granting maintenance. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the income of the respondent-husband, who is earning approximately Rs. 31,400/- per month, as proved by his salary slip. Deduction of loan EMIs taken by the husband for his personal benefit cannot be a valid ground to reduce the maintenance payable to the wife. Even otherwise, law is well settled that a husband cannot escape his liability to maintain his wife on the plea of financial constraints or liabilities, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anju Garg vs. Deepak Kumar Garg (2022). He also submits that the impugned order overlooks the settled 4 principle that the wife is entitled to live a life commensurate with the status and lifestyle of her husband. The Learned Court failed to consider inflation, rising cost of living, and the social objective of Section 144 of the BNSS, which aims to prevent destitution of a deserted wife. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai (2008) and Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena (2015) has clearly held that maintenance must be reasonable, realistic, and sufficient to enable the wife to live with dignity, and not merely for her bare survival. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.1 towards maintenance observing that the applicant-wife was compelled to live separately due to cruelty and assault committed by the respondent, that the respondent is gainfully employed as a peon in Khadgawan College earning about Rs.31,400/- per month and is financially capable of maintaining his wife, and that the respondent has failed to provide any maintenance to the applicant. The learned Family Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held that the applicant No.1 has sufficient and justifiable reason to reside separately and is legally entitled to maintenance, while the 5 children being in the custody of the respondent are not entitled to maintenance from him. Accordingly, the Family Court granted maintenance to the applicant No.1-wife as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil