1 2026:CGHC:8902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 260 of 2026 1 - Smt. Shibu Singh W/o Vijaydev Singh, D/o Chandrabhushan Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Mohalla Bouripara, Kenabandh Behind New Pandey Petrol Pump Thana And Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - Samrat Singh S/o Vijaydev Singh Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shibu Singh R/o Mohalla Bouripara, Kenabandh Behind New Pandey Petrol Pump Thana And Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Vijaydev Singh S/o Dhanuram Aged About 35 Years R/o Mohalla Damarpara (Chinddand) Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) ...Respondent For Applicants : None For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.02.2026 1. None appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the applicant to press this revision petition when the case is called out. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 may be pleased to allow the revision and set- aside the finding in order dated 20-01-2026 whereby maintenance has been rejected to the applicant No.1 and it is also prayed that the maintenance awarded to the applicant no.2 may be suitably enhanced, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant No. 1 was married to the respondent on 24.02.2018 at Ambikapur in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, and applicant No. 2 was born out of the said wedlock on 25.11.2018. At the time of marriage, the parents of applicant No. 1 allegedly provided Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, jewellery worth Rs.5,00,000/-, household articles worth Rs.3,00,000/-, and furniture worth Rs.1,00,000/- on the demand of the respondent and his family. After about one year of peaceful matrimonial life, the respondent, who was running a JCB repair and spare parts business under the name “Dev Engineering,” began demanding an additional Rs.5,00,000/- for purchase of a JCB machine and subjected applicant No. 1 to continuous harassment, which intensified after the birth of applicant No. 2. Relying on the respondent’s assurances, the father of applicant No. 1 paid Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, whereafter the respondent purchased a JCB on loan, however, within about six months, the respondent again demanded Rs.7,00,000/- for purchase of land at Baikunthpur and, upon failure to meet the demand, allegedly abused, assaulted, and threatened applicant No. 3 1, further subjecting her to cruelty, deprivation of household necessities, and intimidation, including threats with a knife. Subsequently, under continued pressure, the father of applicant No. 1 paid Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and mortgaged his house to secure a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- in the respondent’s name for purchase of land, but despite temporary improvement in conduct, the respondent again harassed and assaulted applicant No. 1 and ultimately drove her out of the matrimonial home on 05.07.2024. Efforts at reconciliation failed, and a written complaint dated 05.11.2024 was lodged at Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, leading to registration of Crime No. 33/2024 against the respondent. Since 05.07.2024, the respondent has neither maintained nor contacted the applicants, despite allegedly earning substantial income from his JCB and spare parts business, while the applicants remain dependent upon the parental family of applicant No. 1. The learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure A-1), rejected the claim of applicant No. 1 and granted only Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to applicant No. 2, which is stated to be wholly inadequate. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 4. I have perused the documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the evidence placed on record, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, has passed the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 strictly in 4 accordance with law and the settled principles governing grant of maintenance. The learned Family Court has judiciously evaluated the factual matrix, the conduct of the parties, the financial capacity of the respondent, and the actual entitlement of the applicants, and thereafter rightly concluded that no sufÏcient ground was made out for grant of maintenance to applicant No. 1, while granting reasonable and appropriate maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No. 2 keeping in view the welfare, needs, and best interest of the minor child. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence, cogent reasoning, and sound judicial discretion. 6. Considering 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 9. After passing of the order Ms. Anushka Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants comes and prays that their presence may be marked. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan