1 2026:CGHC:14123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 414 of 2026 Rameela Patel @ Vandana Patel W/o Vijay Patel Aged About 31 Years At Present Resident Of Village Navrangpur, Police Station And Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Vijay Patel S/o Mahendra Patel Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Patharipali, Post Tamtora, Out Post Kanakveera, Police Station Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) At Present Resident Of C/o Motilal Patel, Nearby Gaurav Vidya Mandir, Ward No. 07, Shastri Nagar, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.03.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to enhance the maintenance amount awarded in the order dated 28-11- 2025 (Annexure A-1), passed by the Court of RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 learned Family Court Mahasamund, Link Court Saraipali (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No.100/2024, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant/wife preferred an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband, stating that their marriage was solemnized on 10.05.2013 as per customary rites and they are blessed with one son, who is presently residing with the respondent. It was alleged that on 13.08.2023, the applicant was ousted from her matrimonial home and was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the respondent; further, it was alleged that the respondent developed a relationship with another woman and started residing with her, and also subjected the applicant to unnatural demands. It was further contended that the respondent had obtained loans in the name of the applicant from Axis Bank and Shriram Finance Company, which remain unpaid. The applicant submitted that the respondent is a government teacher earning about Rs. 40,000/- per month and also has agricultural income from family land, and on that basis claimed maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month. Upon notice, the respondent appeared and filed his reply denying the allegations and alleging that the applicant is living an adulterous life and had voluntarily left the matrimonial home; he further stated that he is burdened with repayment of personal loans and that the applicant is educated and capable of maintaining herself. After considering the pleadings and evidence, the learned Family Court framed issues and decided them in favour of the 3 applicant; however, vide impugned order, granted maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month, which being inadequate in view of the status and income of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in awarding a meagre amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the applicant, despite the respondent being a government servant working as a teacher and earning approximately Rs. 44,000/- per month, and therefore the said amount is liable to be enhanced. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has wrongly granted maintenance from the date of the order i.e. 28.11.2025, instead of from the date of filing of the application i.e. 24.09.2024, without assigning any reasons, which is contrary to settled principles of law. It is also contended that the amount awarded is grossly inadequate and does not commensurate with the status and income of the respondent, and the applicant is entitled to maintain a standard of living similar to that of her husband. Learned counsel further submits that the personal loans allegedly taken by the respondent cannot be a ground to award such a meagre maintenance, and that the amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month is insufÏcient even to meet the basic necessities of the applicant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant/wife had preferred an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband, stating that their marriage was solemnized on 10.05.2013 as per customary rites and that they are blessed with one son, who is presently residing with the respondent. Allegations were made regarding cruelty, harassment, and other disputes between the parties, and it was further contended that the respondent is a government teacher having sufÏcient source of income. Upon service of notice, the respondent appeared and filed his reply denying the allegations and raising his own contentions. The learned Family Court, after affording adequate opportunity to both parties, framed relevant issues and, upon proper appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record, has adjudicated the matter in accordance with law. The learned Family Court has taken into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the income, liabilities, and conduct of the parties, and has passed a well-reasoned and speaking order granting maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the applicant. The said order reflects due application of judicial mind and balanced consideration of all relevant factors, and the amount so awarded cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjustified, 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 5 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