1 CGHC010215262026 2026:CGHC:37911 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 726 of 2026 Kailash Kumar Sarthi S/o Late Amarnath Sarthi Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Jhabra (Dipka), Block Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Vandana Sarthi W/o Kailash Kumar Sarthi Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Dumarpara, P.S. Baradwar, Tehsil Naya Baradwar, Distt.- Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Chirag Sarthi S/o Kailash Kumar Sarthi Age 1.5 Year (Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Vandana Sarthi), R/o Village- Dumarpara, P.S. Baradwar, Tehsil Naya Baradwar, Distt.- Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 4led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed by Principle Bench RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Camp Family Court Sakti (C.G.) in M. Cr. case No.- 71/2024, in the ends of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant/husband and respondent No.1/wife was solemnized on 01.03.2022 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, and out of the said wedlock, a son namely Chirag, respondent No.2, was born on 02.07.2023. It is the case of respondent No.1 that soon after the marriage, the applicant subjected her to mental cruelty on account of demand of dowry and, consequently, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and reside at her parental house. She further claimed that she has no independent source of income or livelihood and is unable to maintain herself and her minor son, and therefore sought maintenance from the applicant. 3. The applicant, on the other hand, denied the aforesaid allegations and submitted that the parties were leading a happy matrimonial life and that it was only after the birth of their son that the conduct of respondent No.1 changed, as she expressed her unwillingness to continue the matrimonial relationship and asked the applicant for divorce. It is further the case of the applicant that respondent No.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 26.02.2023 and started residing at her parental house, despite repeated e?orts made by the applicant to bring her back. As she refused to resume cohabitation, the applicant instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Camp at Katghora, bearing Case No.543/2024. 3 During the said proceedings, the parties entered into a mutual compromise, pursuant to which respondent No.1 expressed her willingness to return to the matrimonial home and reside with the applicant, and relying upon the said compromise, the proceedings were dismissed vide order dated 26.07.2024. However, despite the said compromise, respondent No.1 did not return to the matrimonial home and continued to reside separately. It is further stated that thereafter, respondent No.1, along with her father, convened a community meeting and voluntarily executed a mutual separation deed (Chhod-Chhutti Ikrarnama), thereby agreeing to live separately from the applicant of her own free will. The applicant further contended that respondent No.1 is an educated and skilled person and is independently engaged in tailoring, beauty parlour and mehndi work, from which she earns approximately Rs.15,000/- per month and is, therefore, capable of maintaining herself. It was also submitted that her father owns approximately 4ve acres of fertile agricultural land. As regards his own 4nancial condition, the applicant stated that he neither owns any personal agricultural land nor a residential house and is not a permanent employee of SECL, Korba. After the death of his father, he is the sole surviving earning member of his family and is also burdened with the medical expenses of his mother, who is su?ering from lung and heart ailments, as well as the responsibility of his younger sister, who has undergone treatment for a urinary tumour. 4. Thereafter, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 11.03.2026, allowed the application for maintenance 4led by respondent No.1 4 and directed the applicant to pay a total sum of Rs.4,000/- per month, comprising Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2/minor son. Being aggrieved by and dissatis4ed with the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in law as well as on facts in granting maintenance to respondent No.1 and has failed to properly appreciate the material evidence available on record. It is submitted that the applicant had made sincere e?orts to restore the matrimonial relationship and, for that purpose, had instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, during the pendency of which both parties entered into a compromise before the Court and respondent No.1 expressed her willingness to return to the matrimonial home; however, despite the said compromise, she subsequently refused to return and continued to live separately. She further submits that respondent No.1 herself desired to sever the matrimonial relationship and, of her own free will, convened a community meeting along with her father and voluntarily executed a mutual separation deed (Chhod-Chhutti Ikrarnama), pursuant to which she chose to reside separately from the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant made repeated and bona 4de e?orts to restore the matrimonial bond, whereas respondent No.1 neither cooperated nor made any reciprocal e?ort to resume cohabitation and, therefore, her continued separate residence was voluntary. 5 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the 4nancial circumstances of the applicant, who is not 4nancially sound, has no personal agricultural land or house and is not a permanent employee of SECL, Korba, and is the sole earning member of his family after the death of his father. The applicant is also burdened with substantial 4nancial liabilities, including the expenses of the medical treatment of his aged mother, who is su?ering from serious lung and heart ailments, as well as the responsibility of maintaining and supporting his younger sister. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court completely overlooked the fact that respondent No.1 is educated and skilled and is independently engaged in tailoring, beauty parlour and mehndi work, from which she earns approximately Rs.15,000/- per month and has an independent source of livelihood and is capable of maintaining herself. Thus, according to learned counsel, the learned Family Court failed to consider the material facts, the conduct of the parties, the applicant’s e?orts to restore the matrimonial relationship, the voluntary separation of respondent No.1 and the respective 4nancial capacities and liabilities of the parties, and has consequently passed the impugned order in an arbitrary and erroneous manner. The impugned order, therefore, is contrary to the facts and material available on record and deserves to be set aside or suitably modi4ed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant 6 and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Bench Camp Family Court, Sakti, District - Sakti, (C.G.). 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, rival submissions, evidence and material available on record, has rightly appreciated the respective claims of the parties and has passed the order of maintenance in accordance with law. The learned Family Court has duly considered the fact that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and that respondent No.2 is their minor son born out of the wedlock, and has also taken into consideration their respective circumstances and requirements. The mere fact that respondent No.1 had been residing separately or that a proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was instituted by the applicant does not, by itself, disentitle her from claiming maintenance, particularly when the learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, found her claim to be maintainable. The alleged compromise between the parties and the subsequent execution of the Chhod-Chhutti Ikrarnama are matters which have been duly considered in the backdrop of the pleadings and evidence and do not, in the facts of the present case, warrant denial of maintenance to the wife. The learned Family Court has also appropriately considered the 4nancial capacity of the applicant and his corresponding liabilities while 7 determining the quantum of maintenance and has awarded a modest amount of Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to the minor son, totalling Rs.4,000/- per month. The amount so awarded cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate to the basic needs of the wife and the minor child. The contention regarding the alleged independent income of respondent No.1 and the 4nancial liabilities of the applicant are essentially matters of appreciation of evidence. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 4nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in4rmity 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. 12. Let a certi4ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan