1 CGHC010221312025 2026:CGHC:36282 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 685 of 2025 Smt. Savitri Rajwade Wife of Moharlal Rajwade Daughter of Late Lakhan Aged About 56 Years Resident of Village Brijnagar, At Present Resident of Runiyadeeh, Tahsil And District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Moharlal Rajwade Son of Late Jaimangal @ Sukul Ram Aged About 57 Years Resident of Village Brijnagar, Post And Chowki Latori, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil Latori, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. S.M.H. Jafri, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, learned counsel for the applicant, is stated to be on adjustment. However, considering that the matter is an old one and that Mr. S.M.S. Jafri, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati is present, he is permitted to argue the matter. 2. The present revision has been 9led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.14 18:53:50 +0530 2 enhance the maintenance amount awarded in the order dated 29-04-2025 (Annexure A-1), passed by the Court of learned Family Court Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No.194/2024, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant/wife preferred an application under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. against the husband/respondent, wherein it was pleaded that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent as per the caste customs prevalent between the parties. Out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with seven children. Since all the children were daughters, the respondent used to ill-treat the applicant on the issue of a male child. In the year 2007, the respondent started residing with another lady, and from that relationship, two children were born. In the year 2020, the child namely Vimla, who is a special child, along with the applicant, was isolated in the house, and in the year 2024, the applicant and the special child Vimla were ousted from the matrimonial home. Since thereafter, she has been residing in the house of her brother. The respondent/husband is working in SECL, Bhatgaon as Pump Operator, Category-IV, and he is earning a sum of Rs. 89,188/- per month. Therefore, maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- has been sought for the special child and Rs. 10,000/- has been sought for the other child, thus totaling Rs. 50,000/- per month from the husband. 4. The husband 9led his reply and pleaded that it was the applicant who used to pressurize him to perform a second marriage, and thereafter he performed marriage with another lady. So far as the special child is concerned, it was stated that she is about 41 years of age and is having three children. The respondent denied all the averments made in the maintenance application. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned 3 Family Court framed four issues and decided all the issues in favour of the applicant. However, the learned Family Court passed an order granting maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has awarded a meager amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the applicant/wife, despite the substantial increase in the cost of living and prices of essential commodities in the present circumstances. He further submits that the husband is employed with SECL, and his salary slip for the month of July (Ex.P.2) was produced before the learned Family Court, which clearly shows that he is earning a monthly salary of Rs. 1,34,784/-. The applicant/wife is equally entitled to live a life commensurate with the status and standard of living of her husband. However, in the present case, a meager amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month has been awarded towards maintenance, which is shockingly inadequate and on the lower side. Therefore, the said amount is liable to be suitably enhanced. He also submits that the learned Family Court ought to have taken into consideration that with an amount of only Rs. 5,000/- per month, the applicant/wife would not even be able to meet the basic necessities and essential expenses of her life, particularly in view of the prevailing cost of living. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant/wife is not able to maintain a standard of living commensurate with the status and 9nancial capacity of the husband. Therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is wholly inadequate and is liable to be suitably enhanced. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family 4 Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the application 9led under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. The learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant. While determining the quantum of maintenance, the learned Family Court duly considered the income, social and economic status of both parties, as well as the prevailing price index. Therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded cannot be said to be inadequate or on the lower side. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek