1 2026:CGHC:24676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 697 of 2026 1 - Smt. Chetna Sahu Wife Of Aakash Sahu Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Kanji House, Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Yuvraj Sahu Son Of Aakash Sahu Aged About 3 Years (Minor) Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Chetna Sahu Wife Of Aakash Sahu, Resident Of Father Premulal Sahu Kanji House, Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Aakash Sahu Son Of Latel Maheshwar Sahu Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Ekta Nagar, Behind Saraswati Shishu Mandir Aamatalab Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.06.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and modify / enhance impugned maintenance amount of order dated 07.02.2026 passed by the learned family RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Court Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh in Misc. Criminal case No. 32/2024 and also may kindly be granted maintenance amount sought by the maintenance application for seeking granting maintenance amount of Rs. 45,000/- per month, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between Applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 14.05.2020 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, and out of the said wedlock Applicant No. 2 was born. According to the applicants, after some time of marriage, the respondent started subjecting Applicant No. 1 to mental and physical harassment on account of inadequate dowry and used abusive language towards her, as a result of which she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and reside at her parental house along with Applicant No. 2. It is further alleged that the applicants have no independent source of income for their maintenance, whereas the respondent is engaged in the business of a readymade garments shop situated at Dhamtari Main Road, District Dhamtari, and is earning approximately Rs.1,60,000/- per month. On these averments, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C./Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking maintenance of Rs.45,000/- per month from the respondent. The respondent appeared before the learned Family Court and contested the proceedings by denying the allegations levelled against him. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per 3 month in total, i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month to Applicant No. 1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to Applicant No. 2. Being aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance so awarded, the applicants have preferred the present criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record, particularly with regard to the financial status and earning capacity of the respondent. It is contended that Applicant No. 1 was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to the cruelty, harassment and ill-treatment meted out to her by the respondent and has since been residing separately along with Applicant No. 2. He further submits that the applicants have no independent source of income and are entirely dependent upon the maintenance awarded by the Court for their livelihood. It is argued that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate that the respondent is engaged in the business of a readymade garments shop at Dhamtari Main Road, District Dhamtari, and is earning approximately Rs.1,60,000/- per month, yet only a meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- per month has been awarded towards maintenance, which is wholly inadequate for the sustenance of the applicants. It is further submitted that the applicants are residing in a rented accommodation for which a monthly rent of Rs.4,500/- is being paid and Applicant No. 2 is studying in a private school, thereby incurring educational and other day-to-day expenses. He contends that the learned Family Court has not properly considered the actual income and financial 4 capacity of the respondent while determining the quantum of maintenance and has awarded an amount which is insufficient to meet even the basic needs of the applicants. It is further submitted that the respondent has made no sincere effort to maintain the applicants or to resume cohabitation, whereas Applicant No. 1 was always willing to reside with him. In these circumstances, considering the rising cost of living, the educational expenses of the minor child and the income of the respondent, learned counsel submits that the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court deserves to be suitably enhanced in the interest of justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced on record and the material available before it, has rightly passed the impugned order. The learned Family Court has duly taken into account the relationship between the parties, the factum of marriage, the status of the minor child, the respective contentions of the parties and the financial capacity of the respondent as reflected from the evidence on record. The Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and, upon being satisfied regarding the entitlement of the applicants, awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to Applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to Applicant No.2. It appears that the quantum of maintenance has been determined on the basis of the material available on record and there is nothing to indicate that the 5 learned Family Court has ignored any material evidence or has committed any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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