1 CGHC010209382026 2026:CGHC:37150 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 782 of 2026 1 - Smt. Neetu Manhar W/o Girouddham Manhar Aged About 28 Years All Applicants R/o Village Kewachhi P.S. And Tehsil Bilha District Bilaspur C.G. At Present Resident Of Village Mudhipar P.S. And Tehsil Bilha District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Kumati Mishka Manhar D/o Girouddham Manhar Aged About 7 Years All Applicants R/o Village Kewachhi P.S. And Tehsil Bilha District Bilaspur C.G. At Present Resident Of Village Mudhipar P.S. And Tehsil Bilha District Bilaspur C.G. 3 - Kumari Ananya Manhar D/o Girouddham Manhar Aged About 3 Years All Applicants R/o Village Kewachhi P.S. And Tehsil Bilha District Bilaspur C.G. At Present Resident Of Village Mudhipar P.S. And Tehsil Bilha District Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicants versus Girouddham Manhar S/o Late Dhanaram Manhar R/o Village Kewachhi P.S. And Tehsil Bilha District Bilaspur C.G. … Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Baldau Prasad Banjare, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Maya Chaturvijani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2 025 1. The applicants have preferred the present criminal revision against the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the learned First Additional RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 464/2024, whereby the application =led by applicant No.1, on her own behalf and on behalf of her two minor daughters, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now corresponding to Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband, has been partly allowed. By the impugned order, the learned Family Court has directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month each to applicant Nos.2 and 3, thereby awarding a total sum of Rs.7,000/- per month to the applicants from the date of the judgment. 2. The case of the applicants, in brief, is that applicant No.1, on her own behalf and on behalf of her two minor daughters, preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, seeking total maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month from the respondent/husband and also preferred an application seeking interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. It was pleaded that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 26.04.2018 in accordance with Hindu rites, customs and traditions at Village Kewachhi, Police Station and Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.). After marriage, applicant No.1 started residing with the respondent at his matrimonial home and, out of the said wedlock, two daughters, namely, Kumari Mishka Manhar, aged about 7 years, and Kumari Ananya Manhar, aged about 5 years, were born, both of whom are 3 presently residing with applicant No.1. It was further pleaded that the respondent and his family members subjected applicant No.1 to physical and mental cruelty by alleging that she had brought insuAcient dowry and inferior articles from her parental home and by demanding a car and Rs.5,00,000/- in cash from her parents. It was also alleged that applicant No.1 was subjected to harassment on account of giving birth to two daughters and that the respondent was maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman residing at Bilaspur. According to the applicants, due to such harassment and ill-treatment, applicant No.1 along with her two minor daughters was driven out of the matrimonial home, pursuant to which she lodged a complaint before the Women Police Station, Bilaspur, on 26.01.2024. It was further pleaded that applicant No.1 has no independent source of income and is wholly dependent upon the respondent for her maintenance and the day-to-day needs of the minor daughters. With regard to the =nancial capacity of the respondent, it was alleged that about 7 acres of irrigated agricultural land stands recorded in the name of the respondent and his parents in the revenue records, from which an annual income of approximately Rs.7,00,000/- is being derived; that the respondent is employed as a Peon in the Education Department and earns approximately Rs.23,000/- per month as salary, and that he is also engaged in share-market activities, from which he earns approximately Rs.30,000/- per month. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, it was claimed that the respondent has suAcient means and =nancial capacity to maintain the applicants and, accordingly, 4 maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month was sought. 3. Upon issuance of notice, the respondent appeared before the learned Family Court and =led his reply opposing the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as well as the application for interim maintenance. 4. After considering the pleadings and material available on record, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 10.04.2026, partly allowing the application and awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month each to applicant Nos.2 and 3. It is further stated that the respondent had instituted proceedings under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce on 10.07.2024, which came to be dismissed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, vide order dated 09.10.2025. Thereafter, applicant No.1 preferred an application under Section 144(3) of the BNSS before the learned trial Court on 15.04.2026, which is stated to be pending consideration. Being dissatis=ed with the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court, the applicants have preferred the present revision seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned judgment dated 10.04.2026 is arbitrary, contrary to law and the material available on record and suFers from perversity and non- application of mind. It is submitted that applicant No.1, on her own behalf and on behalf of her two minor daughters, had =led an 5 application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking total maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month from the respondent/husband, along with an application seeking interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month, however, no order whatsoever was passed by the learned Family Court on the said interim maintenance application during the pendency of the proceedings. He further submits that the learned Family Court had framed speci=c issues regarding the applicants’ suAcient cause for residing separately, their inability to maintain themselves, the =nancial capacity of the respondent and their entitlement to maintenance, and the applicants, by leading oral and documentary evidence, successfully established the aforesaid facts. It is contended that applicant No.1 did not voluntarily leave the matrimonial home or reside separately without suAcient cause, but was compelled to do so on account of the cruelty, harassment and ill-treatment meted out to her by the respondent and his family members, which was duly supported by the evidence adduced before the learned Family Court. He further submits that the =nancial capacity of the respondent has not been properly appreciated, despite the material on record showing that he is employed as a Peon (Grade-IV) in Government Pre-Middle School, Mohda, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur, on compassionate appointment and earns approximately Rs.23,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the respondent is the only son of his parents, various movable and immovable properties stand in the name of the respondent and his parents, and his mother is also receiving 6 pension, which demonstrates that the respondent has suAcient means to maintain his wife and minor daughters. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that the learned Family Court has failed to properly consider the documents and evidence produced by the applicants, including the revenue records relating to the properties standing in the names of the respondent and his parents, the salary slip of the respondent, the FIR lodged against him, the marriage invitation card and marriage photographs, as well as other material placed on record. It is further submitted that the applicants were entitled to maintenance from the date of =ling of the application, particularly as no interim maintenance was granted during the pendency of the proceedings. Learned counsel submits that there is no reason whatsoever assigned by the learned Family Court for not awarding maintenance to the applicants from the date of =ling of the application, and the impugned order is completely silent as to why the maintenance has been made payable only from the date of the judgment. It is therefore contended that, in the absence of any interim order despite the pendency of the interim maintenance application, and considering that the applicants were compelled to maintain themselves during the entire pendency of the proceedings, the maintenance ought to have been directed to be paid from the date of =ling of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. He lastly submits that the amount of maintenance awarded is wholly inadequate having regard to the needs of applicant No.1 and the two minor daughters and the =nancial capacity of the respondent and, therefore, the 7 maintenance amount deserves to be suitably enhanced and made payable from the date of the original application. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Family Court after due consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record and, therefore, no interference is warranted. It is submitted that the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is just and reasonable having regard to the respondent’s income, liabilities and family circumstances. She further submits that the respondent is ready and willing to pay the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court from the date of =ling of the application. It is also submitted that the respondent has certain family responsibilities and his mother is suFering from some medical ailments, for which he is required to incur medical expenses. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the present revision, seeking further enhancement of the maintenance amount, deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, has rightly assessed the entitlement of the applicants and has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month each to applicant Nos.2 and 3. However, it is evident from 8 the record that the applicants had also preferred an application seeking interim maintenance during the pendency of the main proceedings, but no order was passed thereon. The learned Family Court has also not assigned any cogent or convincing reason for directing payment of maintenance only from the date of the impugned judgment instead of from the date of the application. Considering that the applicants were residing separately and had approached the Court seeking maintenance on the ground of neglect and refusal on the part of the respondent, and further considering the respondent’s own submission that he is ready and willing to pay the maintenance awarded from the date of =ling of the application, this Court =nds that the maintenance ought to have been made payable from the date of the application. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, the present revision petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The impugned order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, in Misc. Criminal Case No.464/2024, is modi=ed to the extent that the maintenance awarded in favour of applicant No.1 at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and applicant Nos.2 and 3 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month each, totalling Rs.7,000/- per month, shall be payable by the respondent from the date of =ling of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. instead of from the date of the impugned judgment. The other terms and conditions of the impugned order shall remain unaltered. 9 11. In view of the same, the instant criminal revision is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the certi=ed copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan