1 2026:CGHC:5564 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 453 of 2024 1. Smt. Shweta Kapoor W/o Sumit Kapoor Aged About 34 Years R/o Near Masjid Simga At Present R/o Malai Ghat Mungeli Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2. Kumari Joya Kapoor D/o Sumit Kapoor Aged About 11 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Shweta Kapoor W/o Sumit Kapoor, R/o Near Masjid Simga At Present R/o Malai Ghat Mungeli Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Sumit Kapoor S/o Raghuvir Singh Kapoor Aged About 38 Years Through Mukesh Saluja Near Masjid Simga Tahsil Simga, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For applicants : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : None Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this revision when the case is called out for hearing today. 2. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. 3. The present petition has been filed by the applicants seeking following ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.02 11:17:03 +0530 2 prayer:- “It therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be passed to allow this revision petition and further be pleased to enhanced the maintenance amount of the petitioner No. 2 passed by learned Family Court Bilaspur (C.G.) and granted maintenance amount to the petitioner no. 1 in MJC No. 54/2023, parties between "Smt. Shweta Kapoor Vs. Sumit Kapoor" in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicants moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking grant of maintenance, stating therein that the respondent had neglected and refused to maintain them. Accordingly, the applicants prayed that the respondent be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicants. 5. Pursuant to the said application, the learned Family Court issued notice to the respondent. After service of notice, the respondent filed his reply to the main application as well as a reply to the interim maintenance application before the learned Family Court. 6. Despite the existence of the above facts and the material available on record, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order dated 27.01.2024, whereby maintenance of only Rs. 2,500/- per month was granted to applicant No. 2, and the claim of maintenance of applicant No. 1 was rejected, ignoring the afÏdavit filed by the husband in compliance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Another (2021) 2 SCC 32. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, 3 perverse, erroneous, illegal, and contrary to the evidence available on record. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be modified and the maintenance amount be enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- per month in favour of the applicants. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly consider and apply the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is most respectfully submitted that the applicants are living separately from the respondent for sufÏcient and justifiable reasons. He submits that learned trial Court ignored the material fact that the respondent has not filed any application for restitution of conjugal rights for resuming cohabitation and has shown no interest in leading a happy matrimonial life with the applicants. The learned Family Court ignored the afÏdavit filed by the applicant in compliance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Another (2021) 2 SCC 32. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be modified by enhancing the maintenance amount granted to applicant No. 2 and by granting maintenance to applicant No. 1 as well. It is duly proved on record that the applicants are residing separately for sufÏcient and reasonable cause, and the maintenance amount granted by the learned Family Court is grossly inadequate and insufÏcient considering the needs of the applicants and the financial capacity of the respondent. Therefore, the maintenance amount deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- per month. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants. The Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 4 2500/- to the applicant No. 2. However, the application for grant of maintenance to applicant No. 1 was rejected by the Family Court. The Court considered the income, social, and economic status of both parties and the current price index, and the award cannot be said to be on the lower side. 10. Considering the submission 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (RameshSinha) Chief Justice Abhishek