1 CGHC010264442026 2026:CGHC:29934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 861 of 2026 Smt. Jagriti Verma W/o Lal Bahadur Verma Aged About 46 Years R/o H. No. 1368, Manju Sadan, Indira Para Ward, Bhilai 03, Charoda, District Durg C.G. ... Applicant versus Lal Bahadur Verma S/o Kedar Singh Verma Aged About 47 Years R/o 15 L.B. Verma And Associates, Second Floor, Near Jee Sale, Chouhan State Supela Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg C.G. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2026 1. Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant is present. 2. Heard on IA No.01/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay for filing the present revision. 3. On due consideration, IA No.01/2026 is allowed, and the delay is condoned. 4. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Durg (C.G.) in Case No. 203/2025, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed the application under Section 144 of BNSS filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 5. The prosecution story in brief is that the marriage of the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 13.05.2002 at Risali Bhilai and out of their wedlock children were born. She further stated that last 8 months the husband has refused to maintain her without any reason. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 The applicant is house wife and has no source of income and the respondent is a practicing Advocate and run business in the name and style of Yashswi Enterprises and earning Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. Therefore, she moved an application under Section 144 of BNSS before the Family Court concerned and prayed for Rs.50,000/- per month as maintenance. 6. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has dismissed the application under Section 144 of BNSS filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that the applicant has no source of income and the respondent is a practicing Advocate and run business in the name and style of Yashswi Enterprises and earning Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements 3 of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 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 transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar