1 2026:CGHC:5545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 629 of 2024 1 - Smt. Reena Yadav W/o Dhanesh Yadav, Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Gelhapani, Bhattha Dafai, District- Koriya (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Mehak D/o Dhanesh Yadav, Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Mother Reena Yadav (Applicant No.1) R/o Ward No. 10, Gelhapani, Bhattha Dafai, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Dhanesh Yadav S/o Late Shri Rambilash, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Raisra Asna, Dodi Chowki, Chendra, Police Station- Jhilmili, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 146/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 of the applicants and granted maintenance amount of Rs.1000/- per month each to the applicant No.1 and minor daughter i.e. applicant No.2. Hence, this revision. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No.1 and the non-applicant/husband got married as per Hindu rites and caste customs on 01.05.2019 at Gelhapani. After marriage, they started residing together at the house of the non- applicant/husband. Their marital life remained cordial and prosperous for the initial few months, and out of their wedlock, applicant No.2, Kumari Mehak, was born. After a few months of marriage, the non-applicant/husband and his family members started harassing applicant No.1 in connection with dowry demands. The non-applicant/husband continuously demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash, a washing machine, and a sofa set as dowry, and started abusing and physically assaulting her. He also threatened her to coerce her father, who is an employee in S.E.C.L., to fulfill the dowry demands, stating that only upon fulfillment of these demands would he allow her to reside in his house. The applicant No.1, believing that with the passage of time the non- applicant/husband would give up his dowry demands, continued to tolerate the cruelty. During her pregnancy, the non-applicant/husband assaulted her and drove her out of the matrimonial house due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands. He further threatened that if she entered his house without meeting the dowry demands, he would bury her alive and refuse to maintain her. 3 Thus, applicant No.1 was forcibly ousted from the matrimonial home. The non-applicant/husband, without obtaining divorce from applicant No.1, unlawfully remarried a woman named Priti Yadav on 15.07.2021. After learning about the second marriage, applicant No.1 filed a complaint before the SAKHI One Stop Centre. During mediation proceedings, the non-applicant/husband refused to cohabit with and maintain the applicants. The applicant No.1 also submitted a written complaint against the non-applicant/husband and his family members at the concerned Police Station and before the Superintendent of Police, but no action was taken on her grievance. Since the non-applicant/husband has repeatedly refused to cohabit with and maintain the applicants, they are presently residing at applicant No.1’s parental home and facing extreme financial hardship without proper support. The applicant No.1 is physically weak and unable to perform hard labour. She is not highly educated and occasionally performs house-help work such as cleaning, which is uncertain in nature. At present, she has no employment and no source of income. The applicant No.2 is completely dependent on applicant No.1 and requires proper maintenance, including food, healthcare, and education. The father of applicant No.1 has six children, and applicant No.1 is the only married daughter, he is already burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his family. Therefore, due to lack of financial hardship, applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the 4 learned Family Court, Surajpur in Crl. MJC No. 146/2022 seeking maintenance from the non-applicant/husband. 3. The non-applicant/husband filed a written statement but was later proceeded ex-parte due to non-appearance. The learned Family Court, after considering the evidence and material available on record, partly allowed the maintenance application and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,000/- each to the applicants respectively vide order dated 03.02.2024. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the non-applicant/husband is a resourceful person engaged in various income-generating activities such as brick manufacturing, driving, contracting, and farming, earning approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. He also owns agricultural land, a tractor, a car, and a shop. Considering all these sources, his total monthly income is approximately Rs. 2,00,000/-. The learned Family Court failed to consider the status, income, assets, and standard of living of the non-applicant/husband while determining maintenance, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnish vs. Neha. He further submits that the learned Family Court awarded only Rs. 1,000/- each, which is grossly insufÏcient for the maintenance of the applicants. Applicant No.1 has no independent source of income, and applicant No.2 is fully dependent on her mother. The applicant No.2 requires adequate maintenance for education, food, and healthcare. The non-applicant/husband is legally and morally bound to maintain the applicants. The awarded 5 maintenance amount is insufÏcient considering inflation, cost of living, and basic necessities. The applicants are entitled to a reasonable and adequate maintenance amount in accordance with the living standard of the non-applicant/husband. Due to the meager maintenance awarded, the applicants are unable to sustain themselves. Hence, the maintenance amount granted by the learned Family Court deserves to be enhanced as per the claim made in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C and the impugned order deserves to be set-aside/modified. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has considered the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record in proper perspective while deciding the maintenance application. The learned Family Court has taken note of the financial condition of the parties, the dependency of applicant No.2, and the overall circumstances of the case before determining the quantum of maintenance. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or material irregularity. Nothing substantial has been brought on record in the present revision to demonstrate that the learned Family Court failed to consider relevant factors or that the amount awarded is so arbitrary or unreasonable as to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. 6 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal