1 2026:CGHC:26871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 802 of 2026 Sumit Kumar Das S/o Shri Prabhat Das Aged About 45 Years R/o- Tifra, P.S. Sirgitti, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Sapna Das W/o Shri Sumit Das Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 6/65, Rajkishore Nagar, Lingiadih, P.S.- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewanga, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01 /07/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 30.03.2026 passed by learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.899/2024, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent are husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on 18.06.2010. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) seeking maintenance before the Family Court, Bilaspur, which was registered as MJC No. 899/2024. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, by order dated 30.03.2026, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of the order along with Rs.500/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision contending that the Family Court failed to properly appreciate his actual income, which according to him is reflected in his Income Tax Return as a gross annual income of Rs.1,20,000/- (approximately Rs.10,000/- per month). Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, contrary to the facts and law governing the case, and therefore suffers from illegality and impropriety. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is earning only about Rs.8,000/- per month, as disclosed 3 by him on affidavit, and his gross annual income of Rs.1,20,000/- is duly reflected in his Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2026–27. Despite the same, the learned Court directed payment of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance, virtually exhausting the applicant's entire monthly income. He also submits that the learned Family Court further failed to consider the applicant's own living expenses, including rent, medical expenses, food, and other day-to-day necessities, while determining the quantum of maintenance. Consequently, the impugned order is harsh, unjust, and liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance, the respondent was residing separately for sufficient and justifiable reasons on account of the applicant's conduct. The learned Family Court found that the applicant had failed to substantiate his allegations that the respondent was addicted to liquor or had assaulted him, whereas the respondent had successfully established that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and that the applicant had refused to resume cohabitation. The Court further held that the material available on record, including 4 the applicant's own admissions regarding the operation of the masala business and its financial transactions, demonstrated that he was financially capable of maintaining the respondent, while the respondent had no independent source of income. Accordingly, the respondent was held entitled to maintenance, and the application was partly allowed by awarding maintenance as aforementioned. 6. Considering the submissions 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil