1 2026:CGHC:5572 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 328 of 2024 1 - Smt. Rajkumari Sahu W/o Niranjan Sahu, Aged About 36 Years R/o Chingraj Para, Ganesh Chowk, Near Kamal Kashyap Shop, Thana Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chanchal Sahu D/o Nirajan Sahu, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajkumari Sahu, R/o Chingraj Para, Ganesh Chowk, Near Kamal Kashyap Shop, Thana Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Veer Sahu S/o Niranjan Sahu, Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajkumari Sahu, R/o Chingraj Para, Ganesh Chowk, Near Kamal Kashyap Shop, Thana Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Niranjan Sahu S/o Jai Singh Sahu, Aged About 39 Years R/o Panchmukhi Mandir Ke Pahle, Kududand, Thana Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and enhance the amount passed in order dated 17.01.24 by IInd Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 73/2022, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicants filed Misc. Criminal Case No.73/2022 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance, stating that the marriage of Applicant No.1 with the respondent was solemnized in the year 2012 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, and out of the said wedlock Applicant No.2 and Applicant No.3 were born. It was alleged that after some time of marriage, the respondent started assaulting Applicant No.1 and subjected her to cruelty, as a result of which the applicants were compelled to live separately at her parental home. The respondent thereafter filed his reply before the learned Family Court and denied all the allegations made by the applicants. Subsequently, the learned Family Court recorded the statements of the applicants as well as the respondent and, after considering the pleadings and evidence on record, passed the order dated 17.01.2024, whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed, giving rise to the present revision. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, and 3 contrary to law. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent was harassing the applicants for a decree of divorce and was also assaulting them. The respondent, being a government employee working as a pump operator at CIIMS Hospital with a monthly salary of Rs.38,841/-, is fully capable of paying a higher maintenance amount. Considering that the applicants are minors, aged approximately 11 and 9 years, and the substantial expenses required for their upbringing and education, the amount awarded by the Family Court is manifestly inadequate. Therefore, the respondent ought to be directed to pay an enhanced amount of maintenance commensurate with his financial capacity and the needs of the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed the impugned order dated 17.01.2024 in accordance with law. The learned Family Court has duly examined the marital relationship between the parties, the allegations of cruelty and separate residence, and the respective stand taken by the respondent in his reply, and thereafter, by 4 applying its judicial mind, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of material available on record. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan