1 CGHC010159422025 2026:CGHC:36281 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 713 of 2025 1. Smt. Dolly Das W/o Rahul Kumar Das Aged About 35 Years Caste Christian R/o Bankimongra Korba District - Korba (C.G.) Present Address Ward No. 14 Ghogharanala Baigin Bandhan Talab Ke Pass Champa Tahsil And Thana Champa District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 2. Minor Amaira Das D/o Rahul Kumar Das Aged Abour 2 Years 9 Months Caste Christian R/o Bankimongra Korba District - Korba (C.G.) Present Address Ward No. 14 Ghogharanala Baigin Bandhan Talab Ke Pass Champa Tahsil And Thana Champa District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 3. Ayyans Minor S/o Rahul Kumar Das Aged About 1 Years (Husband Wrongly Mentioned In Inpugned Order ) Caste Christian R/o Bankimongra Korba District - Korba (C.G.) Present Address Ward No. 14 Ghogharanala Baigin Bandhan Talab Ke Pass Champa Tahsil And Thana Champa District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Rahul Kumar Das S/o Late Prabhu Das Aged About 40 Years Caste Christian R/o Civil Line Bankimongra Tahsil Katghora District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing, for the applicant on I.A. No.1 of 2025 for condonation of delay in =ling the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.14 18:53:50 +0530 2 revision petition 2. For the reasons assigned in the application, I.A. No.1 of 2025 of is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. The present revision has been =led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and set aside the part of order dated 07.01.25 passed in Misc. Cr. Case No.251/2023 whereby the learned trial Court awarded total maintenance of Rs.6000/- and further pleased to pass an appropriate order of total maintenance of Rs.30000/- per month in favour of applicants against the non applicant in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicants have =led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), against the respondent. The applicant No. 1 pleaded that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 15.01.2019 at Champa Church, in accordance with the customs and rites of the Christian community. Out of the said wedlock, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were born on 14.09.2020 and 31.05.2022, respectively. The applicants further pleaded that within six months of the marriage, the respondent started harassing applicant No. 1 after consuming liquor and also used =lthy and abusive language against her. The applicants further pleaded that after the birth of applicant Nos. 2 and 3, the respondent started subjecting applicant No. 1 to severe harassment and, on 07.09.2022, drove the applicants out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, applicant No. 1 went to her parental home, where she and the children have been residing with her parents. 3 5. The respondent, while =ling his reply, denied the allegations made by the applicants and pleaded that applicant No. 1 is a careless woman who does not take proper care of the household and that her behaviour towards the respondent and his parents is not good. 6. After recording the evidence of the parties and considering the material available on record, the learned trial Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of applicant No. 1, Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of applicant No. 2, and Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of applicant No. 3. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, insofar as it relates to the amount of maintenance awarded, is meager, inadequate, and contrary to the facts and evidence brought on record by the parties. He submits that the learned trial Court has erred in law and on facts while awarding a total amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicants, whereas the respondent is earning a net salary of approximately Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- per month, as he is employed with SECL. Therefore, considering his income and =nancial capacity, the applicants are entitled to maintenance of at least Rs. 30,000/- per month. Considering the status, income, and =nancial capacity of the respondent, the learned Family Court has failed to award an adequate amount of maintenance in favour of the applicants. The amount awarded is wholly insuEcient and unjusti=ed and, therefore, is liable to be suitably enhanced. He also submits that the learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration the prevailing circumstances and the continuous increase in the prices of essential commodities and day-to-day expenses. In the present circumstances, the amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month awarded towards maintenance for both the applicants is highly meager 4 and insuEcient to meet even their basic necessities and expenses. Therefore, the said amount is liable to be suitably enhanced. He submits that the =nancial condition of the applicants is not sound, and they are desirous of residing with the respondent. However, the respondent has =led a divorce petition before the learned Family Court, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 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 =led under Section 125 of the CrPC by the applicants. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of applicant No. 1, Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of applicant No. 2, and Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of applicant No. 3. 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 =nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in=rmity 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