1 2026:CGHC:5541 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 665 of 2024 1 - Smt. Sulochna Singh W/o Shyam Sunder Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Jhariva, Shahpur, Police Station Chainpur, District Palamu (Jharkhand), At Present R/o Katghari, Tahsil- Akaltara, Police Station- Akaltara, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Daulat Singh S/o Shyam Sunder Singh Aged About 4 Years Through- Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sulochna Singh W/o Shyam Sunder Singh, R/o Village Jhariva, Shahpur, Police Station Chainpur, District Palamu (Jharkhand), At Present R/o Katghari, Tahsil- Akaltara, Police Station- Akaltara, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Shyam Sunder Singh S/o Rambelas Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Jhariva, Shahpur, Police Station Chainpur, Tahsil- Chainpur, District : Palamu, Jharkhand ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision partly and be pleased to set-aside /quash the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 so far as not granting the any amount of maintenance to applicant no. 1 by learned Family Court, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 360/2022 and accordingly grant maintenance amount Rs. 20,000/- per month to the applicant no. 1 and be pleased to further enhance the maintenance amount in favour of applicant no. 2 and grant of maintenance Rs. 5,000/- per month by modifying the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 360/2022, in the interest of justice..” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance on the ground that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the non- applicant/husband was solemnized on 18.06.2010 as per Hindu customs, and out of their wedlock, non-applicant No.2 was born on 09.07.2015. It is further alleged that after the marriage, the non- applicant/husband harassed the applicant No.1 and subjected her to cruelty, due to which she started residing at her parental home. The applicant No.1 has no sufÏcient source of income for her maintenance, whereas the non-applicant/husband has adequate means and possesses agricultural land, therefore, maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month was claimed for the applicants. 3 3. After service of notice, the non-applicant/husband appeared and filed his reply, stating that a divorce had already taken place, denying the allegations of cruelty, and praying for rejection of the application. The applicant examined herself and her witnesses and produced documentary evidence in support of her case. 4. After considering the evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 29.04.2024, rejected the maintenance claim of applicant No. 1 and at the same time partly allowed the claim of applicant No. 2, granting a maintenance of ₹2000/- per month to him. Hence, the present revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that even a divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the right to maintenance cannot be denied merely because, at the time of divorce, the wife allegedly gave consent that she would not claim maintenance in future, as such a condition is not legally sustainable. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the non-applicant/husband had subjected the applicant to cruelty and had driven her out of the matrimonial home, and therefore, there existed sufÏcient cause for her to reside at her parental house. The non-applicant/husband is legally bound to maintain his divorced wife and provide for her livelihood, particularly when she has no independent source of income and he possesses sufÏcient means to maintain her. The finding of the learned Family 4 Court that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance is perverse and patently illegal. It is also submitted that although maintenance has been granted to applicant No.2, the amount awarded is too meager and wholly insufÏcient to meet her basic needs. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the order dated 29.04.2024, passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that an amount of ₹2000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance to applicant Nos. 2(son) and at the same time, the application of applicant No. 1 (wife) was rejected on the ground that she is capable of maintaining herself. In such circumstances, applicant No. 1 is not entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant. It appears that the learned Family Court, upon proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting maintenance solely to the minor child, considering his dependent status and the legal obligation of the father to maintain him. The absence of any finding or relief in favor of applicant No. 1 indicates that the Court did not find sufÏcient grounds to allow her claim for maintenance, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be either erroneous or unjustified. 8. 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. 5 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10.OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal