1 2026:CGHC:7591 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 224 of 2026 1 - Smt Gayatri Bai W/o Jairam Patel Aged About 30 Years Resident of Village Khilourakala, P.O. Ghontha, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Priyanka D/o Jairam Patel Aged About 11 Years R/o Village- Khilourakala, P.O. Ghontha, Tahsil - Dhamdha, District- Durg (C.G.) (Through Natural Guardian Smt. Gaytri Bai Applicant No. 01) 3 - Ku. Rachna D/o Jairam Patel Aged About 6 Years R/o Village- Khilourakala, P.O. Ghontha, Tahsil - Dhamdha, District- Durg (C.G.) (Through Natural Guardian Smt. Gaytri Bai Applicant No. 1) ... Applicants versus Jairam Patel S/o Khilawan Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Kanhapuri, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.02.2026 1. The default pointed out by the Registry of this Court is waived o:. 2. This criminal revision has been ;led by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 revision and passed a suitable order for enhancement of the maintenance amount which is xed as Rs. 2500/-in total by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District: Durg (C.G.) while, passing the order dated 18/11/2025, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicants ;led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of maintenance from the respondent, stating that applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and applicants No. 2 and 3 are their daughters born out of the wedlock solemnized on 20.04.2006 according to Hindu rites. It was alleged that after the birth of daughters, the respondent subjected applicant No. 1 to cruelty on account of his desire for a male child, abused and ultimately drove her out of the matrimonial home, and despite dismissal of the respondent’s divorce petition by the Family Court on 21.01.2019, he neither resumed cohabitation nor made any arrangement for maintenance. The applicants further pleaded that applicant No. 1 has no independent source of income, the children are studying, and the respondent, being an agriculturist possessing agricultural land and residential house, earns suAcient income to maintain them. The respondent denied the allegations and contended that applicant No. 1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home due to an alleged extramarital relationship, that he is willing to maintain the children, that applicant No. 1 is healthy and capable of 3 earning through labour work, and that his agricultural income is limited. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, and admissions of the parties regarding their respective income, agricultural holdings, and earning capacity, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and directed the respondent, by order dated 18.11.2025, to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs.1,000/- each to applicants No. 2 and 3, totaling Rs.2,500/- per month, payable on or before the 10th day of each month. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, improper, and unreasonable in law and on facts, inasmuch as the maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month awarded to the applicants is wholly meagre and insuAcient to meet their present-day basic needs and living expenses. It is further submitted that the applicants have no independent source of income except the said maintenance, whereas the respondent and his family possess suAcient agricultural land and have a sound source of income, which material aspect has not been properly considered by the learned Family Court while determining the quantum of maintenance. It is also contended that the applicants are the legally wedded wife and minor children of the respondent, who is legally and morally bound to maintain them, and that the respondent’s divorce petition has already been dismissed by the Family Court and the appeal thereagainst has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court; 4 therefore, the impugned order ;xing a meagre amount of maintenance deserves to be suitably enhanced. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and the admissions of the parties with regard to their respective income, agricultural holdings, earning capacity, and overall ;nancial condition, has rightly and judiciously appreciated the material available on record and has passed a well- reasoned and legally sustainable order. The Court has taken into account the fact that applicant No. 1 is capable of earning to some extent, that the respondent’s agricultural income is limited, and that the liability of maintenance must be determined in a balanced manner consistent with the means of the respondent and the needs of the applicants. Accordingly, by order dated 18.11.2025, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and awarded maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs.1,000/- each to applicants No. 2 and 3, totaling Rs.2,500/- per month, payable within the stipulated time. The said determination reHects proper application of judicial mind. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the ;nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or in;rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certi;ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan