1 2026:CGHC:7098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 13 of 2024 1. Smt. Itwara Devi Chature W/o Sani Kumar Chature Aged About 41 Years Working As House Wife R/o Village- Risda, Tahsil- Masturi, PS- Masturi, Distt- Bilaspur, (CG) 2. Aniket Kumar Chature S/o Sani Kumar Chature Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Guardian (Mother) Smt. Itwara Devi Chature R/o Village- Risda, Tahsil- Masturi, PS- Masturi, Distt- Bilaspur, (CG) ... Applicants versus 1. Sani Kumar Chature S/o Shyamta Prasad Chature Aged About 51 Years R/o Village- Risda, Tahsil- Masturi, PS- Masturi, Distt- Bilaspur, (CG) 2. Anita Kumar Chature D/o Sani Kumar Chature Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Risda, Tahsil- Masturi, PS- Masturi, Distt- Bilaspur, (CG) 3. Alka Chature D/o Sani Kumar Chature Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Risda, Tahsil- Masturi, PS- Masturi, Distt- Bilaspur, (CG) 4. Anshu Chature D/o Sani Kumar Chature Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Risda, Tahsil- Masturi, PS- Masturi, Distt- Bilaspur, (CG) ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Anushree Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. Heard Ms. Anushree Misrha, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.11 10:56:48 +0530 2 2. The present revision has been 9led by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 passed in M.J.C. Case No. 700/2017 and grant the maintenance amount for the applicant no.1 and enhance the maintenance amount for the applicant no.2, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized about 23 years ago in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the said wedlock, four children were born. Presently, the applicant and respondent No. 1 are residing separately due to disputes between them, and the respondent No. 1 is residing with another woman, which has led to the present dispute between the applicant and respondent No. 1. The applicant 9led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with her children before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, against respondent No. 1, claiming maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The applicant further stated in her application that respondent No. 1 was working with Reliance Industries Limited at Uttarakhand and, after his retirement, he is residing in his ancestral village Risda and has started working in a private company. 4. The respondent No. 1 9led his reply and denied the averments made by the applicant. The applicant produced her witnesses and documents, and the respondent also produced his witnesses and documents. 5. The learned Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the applicant and her children during the pendency of the 3 application. 6. Thereafter, upon perusal of the record and evidence, the learned Family Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for maintenance and allowed maintenance only in favour of the children to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, had earlier granted interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of the applicants. She submits that the applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, no question arises regarding the validity of the marriage between the parties. The respondent No. 1 is a healthy person, is earning a substantial income, and is fully able and liable to maintain his family members. She further submits that applicant No. 1 is a housewife residing with her children and has no independent source of income to maintain herself and her children. Due to the cruelty and ill-treatment meted out by the respondent, the applicant is residing separately, and after such separation, the respondent has failed to provide any maintenance to the applicants. She submits that the applicant No. 2 is a student, and the learned Family Court has granted maintenance of only Rs. 1,250/- per month in his favour, which is grossly inadequate in view of the present cost of living; therefore, applicant No. 2 is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month from respondent No. 1. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. 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 9led under 4 Section 125 of the CrPC by the applicants. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,250/- each to Applicant Nos. 2 to 5 before the Family Court, whereas the claim for maintenance on behalf of applicant No. 1 was rejected on the ground that she is living separately from respondent No. 1 without suFcient cause. The Court also considered the income, social and economic status of both parties, as well as the prevailing price index, and the award cannot be said to be on the lower side. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 9nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in9rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek