1 CGHC010103722025 2026:CGHC:35954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 376 of 2025 Kalawati Devi W/o Late Basudev Jaiswal Aged About 66 Years R/o Village And Police Station- Tapkara, Tehsil- Pharsabahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Amit Jaiswal S/o Late Basudev Jaiswal Aged About 45 Years R/o Village And Police Station- Tapkara, Tehsil- Pharsabahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Virendra Kumar Janardan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Virendra Kumar Janardan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Kunkuri, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 14/2024, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 144 of the BNSS filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the Applicant has filed an application under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. before the learned Family Court Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) for grant of maintenance allowance every month. The applicant has two sons, Respondent Amit Jaiswal and RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 another Ajit Jaiswal. The applicant lives with Ajit Jaiswal who has two sons. On asking for maintenance from the respondent, his wife Rinki abuses her and threatens her when the respondent gives her money. The applicant is scared of threats of the respondent's wife, in February 2022 applicant asked the respondent for money. The wife of the respondent hit the applicant with a pieace of brick on her head, due to which she fainted, due to which she still has a headache and dizziness. In January, her eye operation was done by her younger son. At that time also when the applicant asked for money, his wife abused and taunted her. It is further pleaded that her son/respondent is posted as a lecturer in Government High School, Pharsabahar. His wife is a teacher in Loyola school, kunkuri, the respondent and his wife's monthly salary is Rs. 65,000/- and 35,000/- respectively. The applicant has grown old she is a women suffering from diabetes and Blood Pressure and due to weakness, she faces difficulty in walking. The respondent is not providing food, clothing and medical facilities to the applicant due to which applicant is facing a lot of difficulties. Both the daughters of the applicant are married and are living in their respective in-law's houses. The applicant has to face problems due to lack of food arrangements for them when they come. The learned Family Court framed the issue and after adducing the evidence and after going through the document on record found that the applicant is living with her younger son. 4. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 144 of the BNSS filed by the 3 applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the applicant happens to be the mother of the respondent, and the respondent is posted as a lecturer in Government High School, Pharsabahar, and his wife is a teacher in Loyola School, Kunkuri, the respondent and his wife’s monthly salary is Rs. 65,000/- and Rs.35,000/- respectively. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be modified. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Kunkuri, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 14/2024, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 144 of the BNSS filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the 4 parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that no such good ground has been raised by the applicant’s side, and thus after hearing all the statements 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 warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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