1 2026:CGHC:21649 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 634 of 2026 Akhilesh Agrawal S/o Late Mahendra Kumar Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 17/10, Nehru Nagar (Purv), Bhilai, Tahsil And District -Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Rajshri Agrawal W/o Akhilesh Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Navdurga Chowk, Mahamaya Mandir Road, Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Pragati Agrawal (Minor), D/o. Akhilesh Agrawal Aged About 14 Years Through-Legal Heir Mother Smt. Rajshri Agrawal R/o Navdurga Chowk, Mahamaya Mandir Road, Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicants : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.05.2026 1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.03.2026 passed by the learned Family Court concerned in an application KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 under Section 144 of BNSS, whereby the learned Family Court has directed the applicant to pay a total maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month (Rs. 5,000/- to Non-applicant No. 01 and Rs. 20,000/- to Non-applicant No. 02), which is alleged to be, excessive. Hence, this revision. 2. Brief facts of the case were that, as per the Non-applicants, the marriage between Non-applicant No. 01 and the applicant was solemnized on 30.05.2009 at Agrawal Samaj Bhawan, Priyadarshini Parisar (West), G.E. Road, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.), as per Hindu rites and customs in the presence of relatives and well-wishers. After marriage, they lived together in their matrimonial home at Bhilai as husband and wife. Out of the said wedlock, a female child namely Miss Pragati Agrawal (Non-applicant No. 02) was born on 17.12.2010 at Raipur. It was the case of the Non- applicants that the child suffered serious health complications after birth and was subsequently found to be suffering from 100% disability as per medical certificate issued by the competent authority. It was further alleged that the applicant failed to provide adequate financial assistance for the treatment and maintenance of the child, due to which the entire medical expenditure was borne by Non-applicant No. 01 with the help of her parents. It was also alleged that the applicant neglected his responsibility towards his wife and disabled minor daughter. Further, it was the case of the Non-applicants that the applicant was financially well-established, having multiple sources of income from business, rental properties, agricultural lands, and other commercial activities, and was 3 maintaining a high standard of living. On these grounds, it was alleged that the Non-applicants were compelled to reside separately at the parental home of Non-applicant No. 01 and were fully dependent upon her parents, and accordingly, they claimed maintenance of ₹2,50,000/- per month along with ₹25,00,000/- towards medical expenses. 3. On the other hand, the applicant filed his written reply denying the material allegations. While the factum of marriage and birth of the child was not disputed, it was submitted that the allegations regarding neglect and financial capacity were false and exaggerated. It was stated that after the birth of the child, Non- applicant No. 01 voluntarily went to her parental home for medical treatment of the child and thereafter continued to reside there of her own free will. It was further submitted that the applicant had made sincere efforts to bring them back, but the Non-applicants refused to return on the ground of better medical care and facilities available at the parental home. The applicant further submitted that he belonged to a middle-class family and earned limited income from small-scale trading activities sufÏcient only for his livelihood, and denied having any large-scale business or substantial income as alleged. It was also submitted that Non-applicant No. 01 was well-educated and independently earning income from her father’s business, and therefore she was not dependent upon the applicant. It was further contended that the Non-applicants were residing separately by choice and not due to any neglect on his part, and the application 4 had been filed only to harass him and extract undue financial benefit. Accordingly, dismissal of the application was prayed. 4. The learned Family Court, upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties and appreciation of the material available on record as well as the evidence adduced, partly allowed the application filed under Section 144 of the BNSS, whereby the learned Family Court concerned directed the applicant to pay maintenance of ₹5,000/- per month to Non-applicant No. 01 and ₹20,000/- per month to Non- applicant No. 02, thereby totaling ₹25,000/- per month. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law as well as on facts and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the total monthly income of the applicant is only about ₹20,000/-, whereas the learned Family Court has erroneously awarded total maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month, which is beyond his financial capacity and wholly unsustainable in law. It is further argued that Non-applicant No. 01, in her cross-examination, has admitted that she has been living separately from the applicant since the year 2012 i.e. for about 15 years without any sufÏcient cause and has also admitted that no cruelty was committed by the applicant and she has further admitted that she has not produced any document to prove the income or assets of the applicant and that the applicant does not run any independent business. It is also submitted that the documents and bills placed on record show that Non-applicant No. 5 01 herself is running a business of printing and photocopying under the name “Rajdhani Printer” at Raipur, and she is therefore capable of maintaining herself. It is further contended that the maintenance application has been filed after an inordinate delay of about 15 years, which itself indicates that the Non-applicants are financially independent. It is lastly submitted that the finding of the learned Family Court regarding income of the applicant being based on agricultural land records is erroneous and not supported by evidence, and his actual income has not been properly considered. Therefore, it is not possible for the applicant to pay the awarded maintenance amount and accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application was filed by the Non-applicants seeking maintenance from the applicant under Section 144 of BNSS, claiming maintenance to the tune of ₹2,50,000/- per month along with additional amount towards medical expenses of Non-applicant No. 02. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay ₹5,000/- per month to Non-applicant No. 01 and ₹20,000/- per month to Non-applicant No. 02, thereby totaling ₹25,000/- per month. The learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order, has considered the social status of the parties, their respective earning capacities, as well as the 6 requirements of the minor disabled child and the dependents, and accordingly determined the maintenance amount. In the considered view of this Court, the maintenance so awarded does not appear to be excessive or shockingly on the higher side so as to warrant interference. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court concerned has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal