1 2026:CGHC:5544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 639 of 2024 1 - Smt. Sumitra Chandra W/o Santosh Kumar Chandra Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Ward No. 12, Jaijaipur, Police Station Jaijaipur, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Miss Bhuvi D/o Santosh Kumar Chandra Aged About 8 Years R/o Village Ward No. 12, Jaijaipur, Police Station Jaijaipur, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Miss Lapi D/o Santosh Kumar Chandra Aged About 5 Years R/o Village Ward No. 12, Jaijaipur, Police Station Jaijaipur Through Minor Applicant No. 2 And 3 For Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sumitra Chandra, W/o Santosh Kumar Chandra, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Santosh Kumar Chandra S/o Lakhanlal Chandra Aged About 41 Years Caste Chandranahu, R/o House No. 381, Bhadrapara Balconagar Korba Tahsil And, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. Apoorva Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to call the record and allow this revision and set- aside the order dated 11.03.2024 and passed order in favor of applicant no.1 and enhanced the maintenance for the applicant no. 2 and 3., in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the non-applicant/husband was solemnized on 04.05.2012 at Village Arsiya as per Hindu rites and customs, and after marriage, the applicant No.1 resided in her matrimonial home and lived her married life with the non-applicant/husband. Out of the wedlock, they have two children, Miss Bhuvi aged about 8 years and Miss Lipi aged about 5½ years, both of whom reside with applicant No.1. It is pleaded that after one month of cordial marital life, the non-applicant/husband started criticizing the dowry articles as being of low quality and even destroyed the colour television by throwing it. Thereafter, the non-applicant/husband and his family members allegedly subjected applicant No.1 to physical and mental harassment and demanded dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/-. As the demand could not be fulfilled by her parental family, the non- 3 applicant/husband assaulted applicant No.1 and sent her along with the children to her parental house on 31.01.2021. Since then, the applicants have been residing at her parental home and are dependent upon her family. The non-applicant/husband allegedly threatened to kill her by poisoning if she returned to Balco without bringing Rs. 10,00,000/-. These incidents were reported at Police Station Jaijaipur on 17.06.2021. It is further pleaded that on 20.06.2021, the non-applicant/husband along with six associates entered the parental house of applicant No.1, used abusive language, threatened to kill her and attempted to forcibly take away her younger daughter Lipi, whom applicant No.1 managed to bring back with difÏculty. This incident was also reported to Police Station Jaijaipur on the same day and a written complaint was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) on 25.06.2021. It is further stated that the non-applicant/husband has failed to maintain the applicants, who have no independent source of income, whereas he is the owner of a grocery and book shop earning approximately Rs. 6,000/- per day, owns a two-storey house at Balco, and possesses about 1.5 acres of agricultural land in Village Mahuwapali yielding around 50 bags of paddy. Accordingly, they prays for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court concerned. 4. The non-applicant/husband filed a reply seeking dismissal of the claim. It is admitted that the applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the children of the non- 4 applicant/husband, however, he has not provided maintenance to them. 5. After considering the evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 11.03.2024, rejected the maintenance claim of applicant No. 1 on the ground that she is living separately from her husband, without any sufÏcient cause and at the same time partly allowed the claim of applicant No. 2 and 3, granting a maintenance of ₹1500/- per month each. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in facts as well as in law and is based on conjectures and surmises, as the Court failed to consider the facts of the case in their proper perspective. It is an admitted position that applicant No.1 and the non-applicant/husband are legally wedded wife and husband, yet the non-applicant/husband has not paid any maintenance to applicant No.1 till date. The applicant No.1 is residing at her parental home and is entirely dependent upon her family, having no independent source of income. It is further submitted that the non-applicant/husband had earlier filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.10.2023, and a copy of the order-sheet is annexed as Annexure A/2. However, while deposing on 06.02.2024, the non- applicant/husband deliberately did not disclose the said fact, and despite this, the learned Family Court wrongly held that applicant No.1 was residing separately at her parental home without sufÏcient 5 cause and dismissed her maintenance claim. It is also submitted that applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are studying at Sanskar Bharti Higher Secondary School, Jaijaipur, but the learned Family Court awarded maintenance on the lower side. The maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month each granted to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 has also been wrongly adjusted against interim maintenance awarded in the Domestic Violence case. Hence, the impugned order suffers from serious legal and factual infirmities therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that an amount of ₹1500/- (each) per month has been awarded as maintenance to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (daughters). At the same time, the application of applicant No. 1 (wife) was rejected on the ground that she is living separately from the non-applicant without any just and sufÏcient reason. 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 6 maintenance solely to the minors child, considering their dependent status and the legal obligation of the father to maintain them. 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.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. 10.Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11.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