1 2026:CGHC:7848 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 230 of 2026 1 - Smt. Ankita Sharma W/o Umesh Sharma, Aged About 35 Years D/o Chandrashekhar Pandey, Caste Bramhan, R/o House Of Chandrashekhar Pandey, Baniyapara Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address- Alka Avenue, H.No. 193, Uslapur, Station Road, Near Shiva Mandir, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Jithisha Sharma, D/o Umesh Sharma, Aged About 5 Years Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ankita Sharma, Caste Bramhan, R/o House Of Chandrashekhar Pandey, Baniyapara Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address- Alka Avenue, H.No. 193, Uslapur, Station Road, Near Shiva Mandir, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Umesh Sharma S/o Late Basant Sharma, Aged About 40 Years Caste Brahman, R/o M.I.G.-3/60, Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, P.O. Ravishankar Vishwavidyalay, P.S. Aamanaka, Sector-03 Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Virendra Pathak, Advocate For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.02.2026 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 1. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be allowed the revision and pleased to enhance and modify the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the First Additional Principal Judge Family Court Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal case no. 115/2022, in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case are the applicants Bled an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the non-applicant before the learned Family Court concerned. It is an admitted fact that applicant No. 1 is the wife and applicant No. 2 is the daughter of the non-applicant. It is alleged that in her application that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant was solemnized through Shaadi.com on 07.07.2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Intercity International Hotel, Jagmal Chowk, Bilaspur. Out of the said wedlock, one female child was born, who is presently residing with applicant No. 1. When the applicant No.1 became pregnant again and was suDering from vomiting, her sister-in-law Smt. Reetu Mishra administered certain medicines, the consumption of which resulted in termination of the pregnancy. Thereafter, the health of the applicant deteriorated day by day, due to which her father came and took her to Kolkata on 09.05.2021. The applicant No.1 resided in her matrimonial home with her husband till September 2021. However, due to severe harassment, physical assault, indecent behavior and abusive language by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, 3 and husband, her health worsened and she started residing at her sister Anamika’s house, from where her father again came and took her to Kolkata. Since then, the applicant No.1 has been continuously residing with her father along with her child till date. The applicants are compelled to survive under the care and dependency of their parents for their livelihood. The non-applicant is holding the position of President/Secretary in a GST company, from which he earns an annual income of approximately Rs. 8–10 lakhs. Therefore, it is humbly prayed before the learned Family Court that the applicants be granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) from the non-applicant. 3. The non-applicant submitted his written statement admitting that he was married to applicant No. 1 and that a daughter was born out of the said wedlock, while denying the remaining allegations. He contended that in her proBle the applicant No.1 had mentioned her blood group as O positive and declared herself to be physically healthy; however, after marriage, he came to know that her blood group is O negative and that she suDers from a problem in her leg. It has further been averred that the nature and behavior of the applicant No.1 are not like that of a normal woman. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of their application. 4. The non-applicant further Bled his written statement; however, on 26.09.2025, at the stage of evidence, due to his absence, ex parte proceedings were initiated against him. 5. After considering the maintenance application, the reply and the documents available on record, the learned Family Court arrived at 4 the conclusion and partly allowed the application Bled by the applicants, directing the non-applicant to pay Rs. 3000/- per month towards maintenance in favour of the applicant No.1 and Rs. 1000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2 (total Rs. 4000/- per month) and further directed to bear Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 is illegal, contrary to law, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that the learned Family Court, without proper appreciation of the material facts and evidence on record, has awarded a meagre maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month, despite the fact that the non-applicant is employed in a GST company under the Finance Department and earns approximately Rs. 8–10 lakhs annually, and has also held the post of Secretary/President and other responsible positions in his workplace association. It is further submitted that the minor daughter, Ku. Jithisa Sharma, is presently studying in KG-2 and her educational expenses have increased substantially; at the time of the interim order she was only one year old and a total sum of Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 1,000/-) was directed, but despite the material change in circumstances and increased needs of the child, the learned Family Court has awarded the same amount in the Bnal order without due consideration. He further submits that the applicant/wife has duly supported her case by Bling her chief examination under Order 18 Rule 04 CPC, wherein she speciBcally stated that during her second pregnancy her sister-in-law 5 administered certain medicines resulting in miscarriage, and thereafter due to continuous harassment, physical assault and abusive conduct by her husband and in-laws, her health deteriorated and she has been compelled to reside with her father since 09.05.2021. It is also contended that the non-applicant owns agricultural land at Village Chhatoni, Simga, from which he earns approximately Rs. 1,80,000/- annually, and that there is additional stable income in the family, as his father was employed in the Military and after his demise his mother was given employment, thereby showing that the non-applicant has suHcient means, yet the learned Family Court failed to award just and proper maintenance. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside/modiBed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Bled by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs. 4000/-per month to the applicants from the date of passing of the order, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the Bnding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the 6 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or inBrmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. OHce is directed to send a certiBed copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal