1 2026:CGHC:24342 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 710 of 2026 Smt. Madhu Kashyap W/o Ajay Kashyap Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Karra, Tahsil- Nawagarh District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh, At Present- Village Bhilauni, Block Nandghat, Tahsil Nawagarh, District- Bemetara, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Ajay Kashyap S/o Ramkrishna Kashyap Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Karra, Tahsil- Nawagarh District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2026 1. Heard Ms. Sareena Khan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside and enhance order dated 17.04.2026 passed ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.06.18 12:41:43 +0530 2 by the learned Judge Family Court, District Bemetara in case of Cr.M.J.C. no 76/2025 in between Smt. Madhu Kashyap V/s Ajay Kashyap (ANNEXURE A/1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the respondent. Along with the said application, the applicant also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance pending final disposal of the case. 4. Upon consideration, the learned Family Court issued notice to the respondent. The respondent filed his reply, and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 17.04.2026, awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 800/- per month to the applicant, payable by the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 17.04.2026 is bad in law as well as on facts and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. She submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant had filed a complaint before the Mahila Thana, Bemetara, wherein both parties arrived at a compromise and agreed to reside together. Pursuant thereto, an Agreement (Aapsi Samjhautanama) was executed before a Notary on 18.11.2024. However, the respondent never complied with the terms and conditions of the said agreement and refused to reside with the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not residing with the respondent. She also submits that the learned Family Court has further failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the family members of the respondent. The learned Family Court has failed 3 to appreciate that the sum of Rs. 800/- per month awarded as interim maintenance is grossly inadequate and insufficient for the applicant to maintain herself and meet her basic necessities of life. She submits that the applicant has been subjected to mental cruelty by the respondent and, therefore, is not in a position to undertake any work outside her home. The learned Family Court has further failed to appreciate that the applicant has no independent source of income. In these circumstances, the applicant is facing severe financial hardship and is entitled to interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the respondent till the final disposal of the case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings of the parties, the documents on record, and the evidence adduced by them, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, vide order dated 17.04.2026, awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 800/- per month to the applicant. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, the material available on record, and also taking into account the prevailing price index and medical expenses, the amount of interim maintenance awarded to the applicant cannot be said to be so grossly inadequate or shockingly low as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash / modify the impugned order is refused. 4 10. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek