1 2026:CGHC:4214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 69 of 2024 1. Smt. Sukwara Sahu W/o Dilip Sahu Aged About 22 Years, R/o Bazar Chowk, Ward No. 4, Tundra, P.S. Gidhauri, Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Present Address Awrind, P.S./tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 2. Sumit Sahu S/o Dilip Sahu Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Smt. Sukwara Sahu, R/o Bazar Chowk, Ward No. 4, Tundra, P.S. Gidhauri, Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Present Address Awrind, P.S./tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Dilip Sahu S/o Bharat Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Bazar Chowk, Ward No. 4, Tundra, P.S. Gidhauri, Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ritesh Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. 2. The present revision has been 8led by the applicants with the following ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.01.27 10:57:09 +0530 2 prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, passed in M. J. C. No. 140/2022 in case of (Smt. Sukwara and ors. v. Dilip Sahu) may kindly be set aside by enhancing the amount of maintenance allowance.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant/wife 8led an application for maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, claiming maintenance in M.J.C. No. 140/2022. The learned Family Court passed an order partly allowing the application and awarded maintenance to the minor son in the sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month, which is a very meagre amount. The Court also awarded Rs. 1,000/- towards the cost of the application. According to the applicant, the facts of the case are that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 18.05.2019 as per Hindu customs, and after marriage, she started residing with the respondent/husband at his house along with his parents. Out of their wedlock, a son namely Sumit Sahu was born, who is applicant No. 2 in this revision. The respondent and his family members started torturing the applicant physically and mentally by using 8lthy language on her every small mistake. The respondent and his family members also started demanding money and a motorcycle. The respondent tortured the applicant for dowry, assaulted her, and also tried to strangle her. On 14.06.2022, the respondent assaulted the applicant and threw her out of the matrimonial house, after which she started living with her old parents. The respondent purposely made attempts to take her back, but did not 3 give her any assurance of safety. The applicant is presently residing at her parental home and is completely dependent upon her old parents, who can hardly a@ord food for themselves at this stage. 4. The respondent/husband denied the allegations made by the applicant. However, he admitted that he is working as a labourer and is earning about Rs. 180/- per day. 5. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, has appreciated the facts but partly allowed the applicant’s application by granting maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to her son, which is a very meagre amount. The applicant/wife is entitled to live a life commensurate with the status of her legally wedded husband, but her claim was rejected erroneously. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, is contrary to law and facts. He submits that the appreciation of the pleadings and evidence by the learned Family Court is illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law. The applicant/wife is entitled to live a life commensurate with the status of her legally wedded husband, and it is the legal duty of the husband to maintain his legally wedded wife. He submits that the applicant is residing with her old-aged parents, who can hardly a@ord food for themselves and have already exhausted their hard-earned savings in ful8lling all liabilities relating to the marriage of their daughter. He submits that the applicant is about 22 years of age, and the respondent/husband deserted her without any reasonable cause. The learned Family Court has failed to properly consider the material contradictions and omissions on record. He also submits that the respondent is a tractor mechanic and also has agricultural land/farm, 4 therefore he is 8nancially capable of paying at least Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. Learned Family Court has erroneously rejected the claim of the applicant/wife by taking an incorrect plea under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., which is wholly illegal and biased. The learned Family Court erred in partly allowing the maintenance application only for the minor son and awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month, which is insuDcient and unjust. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 8led by the applicants. The Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to the applicant No. 2. However, the application for grant of maintenance to applicant No. 1 was rejected by the Family Court. The Court considered the income, social, and economic status of both parties and the current price index, and the award cannot be said to be on the lower side. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 8nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in8rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (RameshSinha) Chief Justice Abhishek