1 2026:CGHC:14124 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 408 of 2026 1 - Smt. Arti Sinha W/o Shri Gulshan Sinha Aged About 30 Years R/o Dhedkohko, Post- Kurutola, Police Station- Charama, District- North Baster Kanker, C.G. At Present R/o Village- Angari, Post- Chichbod, P.S. And Tahsil- Balod, District- Balod, C.G. 2 - Ku. Piyushi Sinha D/o Shri Gulshan Sinha Aged About 1 Years And 1/2 Years, Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Arti Sinha Wife Of Shri Gulshan Sinha, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Dhedkohko, Post- Kurutola, Police Station- Charama, District- North Baster Kanker, C.G. At Present R/o Village- Angari, Post- Chichbod, P.S. And Tahsil- Balod, District- Balod, C.G. ... Applicants versus Gulshan Sinha S/o Shri Goptal Ram Sinha Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Dhedkohko, Post- Kurutola, Police Station- Charama, District- North Baster Kanker, C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Roshan Singh Lamba, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.03.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 and suitably enhance the maintenance in favour of applicants, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicants filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking maintenance, stating that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the non- applicant and applicant No.2 is their child, and their marriage was solemnized on 13.02.2021 as per Hindu rites and rituals. It was alleged that after marriage, applicant No.1 was subjected to cruelty by the non-applicant and his family members and was ultimately ousted from her matrimonial home, due to which she is residing separately. The applicants further contended that the non-applicant owns about 14 acres of agricultural land and earns approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- per annum, whereas applicant No.1 is a housewife having no independent source of income, and despite having sufÏcient means, the non-applicant has failed to provide any maintenance. Upon notice, the non-applicant appeared and filed his reply denying the allegations and seeking dismissal of the application. After conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 30.01.2026, awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month in favour of the applicants, which being inadequate, the present revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary and erroneous, and thus liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant owns about 14 acres of agricultural land and earns approximately 3 Rs. 10,00,000/- per annum, and has also not properly considered the needs of applicant No.2, including expenses towards education, food, clothing, uniform, tuition and transportation, especially in the present scenario of rising prices. It is also submitted that the maintenance amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month awarded to the applicants is grossly inadequate and insufÏcient for their sustenance. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to consider that applicant No.1, being a lady, requires basic necessities for her livelihood and that the applicants are entitled to maintain a standard of living commensurate with that of the non-applicant. It is also contended that the learned Family Court has not appreciated the documents and evidence on record in their proper perspective. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicants had filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking maintenance, stating that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and applicant No.2 is their child, and that their marriage was solemnized on 13.02.2021 as per Hindu rites and rituals. It was alleged that applicant No.1 was subjected to cruelty and compelled to reside separately, and that the non-applicant, despite having sufÏcient means from agricultural income, failed to provide maintenance. Upon service of notice, the non-applicant appeared and filed his reply denying the allegations. The learned Family Court, after affording due opportunity to both 4 parties and upon proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record, has passed a well-reasoned and speaking order dated 30.01.2026. While determining the maintenance, the learned Family Court has duly considered the alleged occupation and earning capacity of the non-applicant as well as the fact that applicant No.1 is working as a teacher at Saraswati Shishu Mandir School, Jhalmala and is earning Rs. 3,000/- per month, which fact has also been admitted by her in her cross-examination. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, the learned Family Court has rightly awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month, i.e., Rs. 1,000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs. 500/- to applicant No.2, as minimum maintenance, which is just, proper and in accordance with law. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan