1 2026:CGHC:5720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 142 of 2026 Smt. Shyam Bai Kosariya W/o Bajram Kosariya Aged About 52 Years R/o Gram Chhatavn, P.S. Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Bajram Kosariya S/o Dhanesh Ram Kosariya Aged About 55 Years Occupation Assistant Grade Iii, Department Of Food And Drug Administration, Mungeli, District OfÏce Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Shruti Dewangan, Advocate For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. Heard Ms. Shruti Dewangan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Today, the matter was listed for hearing on I.A. No. 01/2026 i.e. application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. For the reasons mention, the same is allowed and the matter is heard finally. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the Family Court and thereafter, modify the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 (AnnexureA-1) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur and suitably enhance the maintenance amount of the applicant herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and non-applicant are legally wedded wife and husband, whose marriage was solemnized about 33 years ago according to social customs and rituals. From their wedlock, two daughters and one son were born, and initially both parties resided peacefully at Village Chhatvan. Thereafter, the non-applicant secured employment in the Food & Drug Administration Department and started residing separately at his place of posting. During this period, he developed illicit relations with another woman, namely Parvati and two children were born from the said relationship. Without obtaining any lawful divorce from the applicant, the non-applicant contracted a second marriage and completely abandoned the applicant and their children and stopped providing maintenance to them. Initially, the non-applicant used to provide some financial support, but later, under the influence of his second wife, he stopped maintaining the applicant and the children. Consequently, the applicant was compelled to sustain herself and the children by doing manual labour, while the non-applicant deliberately neglected his legal and moral obligations. On 18.10.2021, the applicant submitted a written complaint before the superior authorities of the non-applicant’s department, pursuant to 3 which a departmental enquiry was initiated. During the enquiry, the non-applicant admitted his fault and executed a compromise, afÏdavit and notarized declaration assuring that he would maintain the applicant and their son. He also executed revenue documents relating to agricultural land in their favour. Relying upon these assurances, the applicant did not pursue further departmental or criminal action, resulting in the continuation of the non-applicant’s service. However, thereafter the non-applicant again violated the terms of the compromise, stopped maintenance, attempted to dispossess the applicant and their son from the agricultural land, and ultimately dispossessed them on 29.06.2022 through his brother. Since then, the he has not been maintaining them, due to which they are facing severe hardship. It is further alleged that the applicant has no independent source of income, resides in a rural area, and is entirely dependent upon the non-applicant for her survival. The non-applicant is a permanent government servant earning approximately ₹50,000/- per month, yet he has willfully neglected the applicant. Therefore, the applicant filed an application before the learned Family Court under Section 144(1) of BNSS seeking maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month. 5. In his reply, the non-applicant admitted the marriage but alleged that the marriage had been dissolved long ago and that he had remarried on 29.06.2022. He further stated that he had already given agricultural land to the applicant and their children, who are cultivating the same and that he is burdened with a loan from SBI Bank. On these grounds, he prayed for rejection of the application. 4 6. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court framed four points for determination and decided all the points in favour of the applicant, passed the impugned order dated 10.09.2025, whereby the non-applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month to the applicant/wife as maintenance from the date of filing of application. Hence this revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the present condition and social status of the applicant, who is a deserted wife with no independent source of income and has also ignored the admitted earning capacity of the Non-Applicant husband, who, in his own examination before the learned Family Court, stated that he earns approximately ₹49,000/- per month as salary. It is contended that despite recording findings in favour of the applicant, the learned Family Court erred in awarding a meager sum of ₹5,000/- per month as maintenance, which is wholly inadequate for the survival of a 55- year-old woman in present times. It is further submitted that the non- applicant has contracted another marriage without legally separating from the applicant, thereby neglecting his legal obligation to maintain her. The impugned order is stated to be cryptic, mechanical, and passed without proper application of judicial mind, which defeats the very object of maintenance law, namely to prevent destitution and vagrancy. The applicant, being a deserted and financially dependent wife, has suffered grave hardship, and therefore the impugned order deserves to be suitably modified. 5 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 144 of BNSS. The Family Court concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹5000/- per month to the applicant/wife. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance amount of Rs. 5000/- per month to the applicant/wife. I am of the considered 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. 6 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal