1 CGHC010250772026 2026:CGHC:28174 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 845 of 2026 Umedram Sahu S/o Alag Ram Sahu Aged About 26 Years Occupation Private Service Resident of Village Pawni, Balodabazar (C.G.) At Present Naval Chandra House Owner, New Bazar Dem Chowk, Uchchbhitthi Road, Kirodimal Nagar, Raigarh, Police Station Kotra Road, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Ragini Sahu W/o Umendram Sahu Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Pawni, Balodabazar C.G. At Present R/o Kirodimal Nagar Raigarh, Police Station Kotara Road, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Minor Dipanshu Sahu S/o Umendrama Sahu Aged About 7 Years, Through his Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Ragni Sahu, R/o Village Pawni, Balodabazar (C.G.) At Present R/o Kirodimal Nagar Raigarh, Police Station Kotara Road, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Minor Kanika Sahu D/o Umendram Sahu Aged About 4 Years, through her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Ragni Sahu, R/o Village Pawni, Balodabazar (C.G.) At Present R/o Kirodimal Nagar Raigarh, Police Station Kotara Road, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Anamika Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2026 1. Heard Ms. Anamika Tiwari, 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 and respectfully prayed ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.09 20:00:41 +0530 2 that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order of maintenance dated 25-03-2026, passed by the Court of learned Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.F-170/2024 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1, who is the wife of the applicant, filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking maintenance. It was pleaded, inter alia, in the application that the applicant (hereinafter referred to as the “husband”) solemnized his marriage with the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “wife”) according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the wife resided in the joint family of the husband. Out of the wedlock, two children, namely respondent Nos. 2 and 3, were born. It was further alleged that after the marriage, the husband used to return home in an intoxicated condition and regularly assaulted the wife. It was further alleged that the husband habitually abused the wife in filthy language and subjected her to physical assault. Owing to such conduct, the wife, along with the minor children, started residing at her parental home at Kirodimal, Raigarh. The wife further stated in her application that the husband is employed in Jindal Company and earns a monthly salary of approximately Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. It was also pleaded that the husband owns two acres of agricultural land and earns additional income from agricultural activities. On these grounds, the respondents sought maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.10,000/- for the wife and Rs.10,000/- for the children. 4. The husband filed his reply denying all the allegations made in the application. He contended that the wife had left the matrimonial home of her own free will and was residing at her parental house. He further 3 stated that he is employed in a private company and earns only Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the maintenance application. 5. The learned Family Court, after considering the evidence available on record, passed the impugned order dated 25.03.2026, whereby it awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order of maintenance dated 25.03.2026 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and the prescribed procedure, and suffers from illegality and perversity. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. She submits that learned Family Court ought not to have passed the impugned order directing the husband to pay maintenance. The wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause, and the allegations levelled by her against the husband are false, baseless, and fabricated. She further submits that the wife is allegedly having an illicit relationship with another person, namely Sonu Yadav. The applicant caught the wife talking to him on several occasions, and they were also in regular contact through WhatsApp chats. In this regard, the applicant submitted a complaint before the Police Department, however, no criminal case was registered, and a closure report was issued. She also submits that learned Family Court failed to consider the fact that the husband made several sincere efforts to bring the wife back to the matrimonial home, however, the wife consistently refused to reside with him. The wife has been residing at her parental home of her own free will and volition. She is also employed as a staff member at Vrindawan Hostel, Sitapur, Raigarh, and is earning approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month. Despite this, the learned Family Court failed to consider her independent source of income, rendering the impugned order illegal and unsustainable. She submits that the wife has 4 voluntarily deserted the company of the husband and has been residing separately without any justifiable reason. The husband specifically pleaded before the learned Family Court that he is employed in a private company and earns only Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month, which is insufficient to pay the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court. Therefore, the impugned order is perverse and liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application filed under Section 144 of the BNSS by the respondents. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded the maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to the respondents. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek