1 CGHC010124552026 2026:CGHC:34259 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 506 of 2026 Smt. Kevra Bai Sahu W/o. Tijeshwar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o. Ward No. 09, Village And Post Tedesara, Police Station Somni, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Tijeshwar Sahu S/o. Late Shri Bharat Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o. Ward No. 09, Village And Post Tedesara, Police Station Somni, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Deepkumar Sahu S/o. Tijeshwar Sahu Aged About 17 Years Through- Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kevra Bai Sahu R/o. Ward No. 09, Village And Post Tedesara ,police Station Somni, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Miss Jigyasa Sahu D/o. Tijeshwar Sahu Aged About 15 Years Represented By Smt. Kevra Bai Sahu, R/o. Ward No. 09, Village And Post Tedesara, Police Station Somni, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) … Respondents For Applicants : None For Respondents : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. Ms. Stuti Shukla, Advocate, appears holding brief for Mr. Aniruddh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and submits that the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 matter is to be argued by Mr. Aniruddh Singh. It is further submitted that Mr. Aniruddh Singh is on adjustment till 07.08.2026 and is, therefore, unable to appear and address arguments in the present matter. Accordingly, a prayer for adjournment is made. 2. However, from a perusal of the cause list as well as the record, it transpires that although Mr. Aniruddh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, is stated to be on adjustment, there are three other learned counsel, namely, Ms. Rewti Choudhari, Mr. Sanchit Bhatt and Mr. Samyak Singhai Jain, whose names are re=ected in the cause list and who have also >led a composite Vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant, duly executed by the applicant. In such circumstances, merely because one of the learned counsel is on adjustment cannot be a ground to seek adjournment when other duly authorised counsel are available to represent the applicant. Accordingly, the prayer for adjournment is rejected. 3. Consequently, this Court proceeds to consider the matter on merits. Despite rejection of the prayer for adjournment, none appears on behalf of the applicant to advance arguments. Accordingly, this Court has proceeded to examine the revision petition on the basis of the pleadings, the material available on record and the impugned order, and has heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. This criminal revision has been >led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court 3 be pleased to set aside the impugned dated 26.12.2025 passed by Shri Uttara Kumar Kashyap, Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred as 'Learned Trial Court') in MJC Case No. 37 / 2024 titled 'Smt. Kevra Bai and Others v. Tijeshwar Sahi and Others'. This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to enhance the maintenance amount in favour of the applicant and grant of maintenance amount from the date of application. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem 7t under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant and Respondent No. 1 was solemnized in the year 2004 at Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were born. According to the applicant, soon after the marriage, the conduct of Respondent No. 1 became cruel and indiDerent towards her. It is alleged that Respondent No. 1 was habituated to consuming alcohol and frequently subjected the applicant to physical and mental cruelty by assaulting her and humiliating her, besides repeatedly stating that he had married her only at the insistence of his parents and did not wish to continue the marital relationship. The applicant further alleges that Respondent No. 1 instituted a petition under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage 4 Act seeking dissolution of marriage; however, the said petition came to be dismissed on merits vide judgment and decree dated 17.06.2022. Despite dismissal of the divorce petition, Respondent No. 1 is alleged to have contracted a second marriage with one Seema during the subsistence of his marriage with the applicant and brought her to the matrimonial home, whereafter both Respondent No. 1 and the said Seema subjected the applicant to further physical and mental harassment. Consequently, the applicant, on behalf of herself and her two children, namely Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, which were registered as M.J.C. Case No. 37/2024, seeking maintenance on the ground that Respondent No. 1 had neglected and refused to maintain them despite having suFcient means. After considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 26.12.2025, partly allowed the application and directed Respondent No. 1 to pay maintenance of ₹2,000/- per month only to Respondent No. 3 with eDect from 13.02.2024, while rejecting the claim for maintenance made by the applicant and Respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved by the refusal of maintenance to the applicant and Respondent No. 2, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision petition challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned order dated 26.12.2025. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Judge, Family Court, 5 Rajnandgaon has passed a well-reasoned and speaking order after proper appreciation of the pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. It is contended that the >ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on cogent reasons and the evidence adduced by the parties and do not suDer from any perversity, illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the entitlement of each claimant under Section 125 of the Code and has awarded maintenance only to the claimant found legally entitled thereto. Accordingly, it is prayed that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Since none appeared on behalf of the applicant despite rejection of the prayer for adjournment, I have also carefully perused the revision petition, the impugned order, the pleadings of the parties and the documents available on record. 8. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, after aDording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties and upon due consideration of the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence adduced on record, and the entire material available before it, has passed a well-reasoned, speaking and legally sustainable order. The learned Family Court has meticulously examined the rival pleadings and the evidence led by both the parties and has recorded speci>c >ndings 6 on each of the issues arising for consideration. The Court below has duly considered the allegations levelled by the applicant regarding cruelty, neglect and refusal to maintain, as well as the defence raised by Respondent No. 1, and upon proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, has arrived at the conclusion that only Respondent No. 3 was entitled to maintenance. The learned Family Court has also taken into account the >nancial status and liabilities of the parties, the entitlement of each claimant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the evidence regarding neglect and dependency before partly allowing the application and awarding maintenance to Respondent No. 3 while declining the claim of the applicant and Respondent No. 2 for reasons speci>cally recorded in the impugned order. The >ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based upon a proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, and settled principles of law governing proceedings under Section 125 of the Code and do not suDer from any perversity, patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or material irregularity. The impugned order re=ects due application of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, has been rightly passed in accordance with law. Consequently, no interference with the impugned order is warranted in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 9. Having independently examined the impugned order in the light of the pleadings and material available on record and considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Family Court has exercised its 7 jurisdiction in accordance with law and has assigned cogent and convincing reasons while passing the impugned order. No ground is made out for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a certi>ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan