1 CGHC010326422026 2026:CGHC:38104 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1087 of 2026 1 - Smt. Swati Das Wife Of Shri Saurabh Kurrechiya, Aged About 31 Years Resident Of L.I.G. 1037, Sector-6 Housing Board Colony, Hanuman Mandir Gali, Saddu, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh). 2 - Ku. Aaradhya Das, (Minor Daughter) Aged About 5 Years Through Her Natural Guardian And Mother, Petitioner No. 1, Resident Of L.I.G. 1037, Sector-6 Housing Board Colony, Hanuman Mandir Gali, Saddu, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh). ... Applicant(s) versus Shri Saurabh Kurrechiya S/o Shri Tulsidas Kurreya (Laxman Das), Aged About 41 Years Resident Of House No. 270, Old Resham Mill, Birla Nagar, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh - 474004. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2026 passed by the learned Third KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in M.C.C. No.622/2025, whereby the application >led by the applicants under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month was partly allowed and the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2 from the date of passing of order. Being dissatis>ed with the quantum of maintenance so awarded, the applicants have preferred the present revision seeking enhancement thereof. 3. Brief facts of the case, as emerging from the application >led by the applicants, are that applicant No.1 is the wife of the non-applicant and applicant No.2 is their daughter. The marriage between applicant No.1 and the non-applicant was solemnized on 18.04.2018 at Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, according to Hindu rites and customs. Out of their wedlock, applicant No.2, namely Aaradhya Das, was born. It is the case of the applicants that after marriage, applicant No.1 came to reside at her matrimonial home, however, the non- applicant was not willing to reside with her and used to abuse and assault her over petty matters. It is further alleged that even when applicant No.1 became pregnant, the non-applicant continued to assault her. After two years of the birth of applicant No.2, the non- applicant left his job. It is further pleaded that after the non-applicant left his job, the mother-in-law of applicant No.1 used to taunt her by saying that the non-applicant had married her only so that she could work as a servant in their house. Subsequently, when the non- 3 applicant obtained employment at Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, applicant No.1 also went to Jhansi to reside with him. It is alleged that prior to Raksha Bandhan, the non-applicant asked applicant No.1 to reside with his parents. Since the aunt of the non-applicant did not like applicant No.1, and despite the non-applicant being aware of the same, he asked her to go and reside there, disputes frequently arose between them, following which the non-applicant again started abusing and assaulting applicant No.1. Being allegedly subjected to abuse and assault by the non-applicant, applicant No.1 left Jhansi on 07.08.2022 and went to reside at the house of her maternal aunt at Gwalior. It is further alleged that thereafter, the non-applicant neither came to take her back nor made any inquiry regarding her and applicant No.2. The family members of applicant No.1 made social as well as personal eDorts to resolve the dispute and persuade the non-applicant and his family members, however, they allegedly refused to take applicant No.1 back while making a demand for dowry. Consequently, applicant No.1 has been residing at her parental home along with applicant No.2 for the last about three years. It is further pleaded that applicant No.1 is a homemaker and has no independent source of income to maintain herself and applicant No.2, whereas the non-applicant is working as an Assistant Manager at Akash Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, and is earning approximately Rs.55,000/- per month. It is also alleged that the non- applicant has a paternal house at Gwalior and receives income from the property situated at Village Syawari Prithvipur, besides which his parents are in Government service. On these grounds, the applicants 4 >led an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking a total maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month from the non-applicant. 4. In his reply, the non-applicant, while admitting the admitted facts, had denied the remaining allegations made by the applicants. It was his case that after the marriage, he had maintained the matrimonial relationship with applicant No.1 properly and peacefully, but her conduct had not been cooperative from the very beginning. He had denied having ever abused or assaulted applicant No.1 and had contended that she herself had been unwilling to reside in her matrimonial home and had been pressurizing him to live separately from his family. It was further stated that after the non-applicant had lost his employment, applicant No.1 had frequently quarrelled with him and his family members and had refused to assist in household work. After the non-applicant had obtained employment at Jhansi, he had started residing at the house of his maternal aunt and had also called applicant No.1 to reside with him. However, even during their stay at Jhansi, applicant No.1 had allegedly not cooperated in household work, had quarrelled with him over petty matters and had insisted upon taking a separate rented accommodation. According to the non-applicant, applicant No.1 had thereafter quarrelled with and abused him and had voluntarily left his company without any suEcient or justi>able reason. The non-applicant had further stated that he had made several eDorts to bring applicant No.1 back, but she had refused to return. Thereafter, he had sent a legal notice dated 23.05.2025 through his counsel requesting her to resume 5 matrimonial life, to which she had replied on 27.05.2025 and had refused to reside with him. It was further pleaded that applicant No.1 had been residing separately without any suEcient cause and that the non-applicant was presently unemployed, had no income from the ancestral property and was also responsible for maintaining his parents. On these grounds, the non-applicant had prayed for dismissal of the application >led by the applicants. 5. The learned Family Court concerned after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 30.05.2026, whereby the application >led by the applicants under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month was partly allowed and the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2 from the date of passing of order. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the learned Family Court has erred in awarding only Rs.8,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.2, as the total amount of Rs.11,000/- per month is wholly inadequate having regard to the reasonable needs of the applicants, prevailing cost of living, their status and standard of living. It is submitted that applicant No.1 has no suEcient independent source of income, whereas the non- applicant is an educated and able-bodied person working as an Assistant Manager at Akash Institute, Jhansi and earning 6 approximately Rs.55,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the educational, medical, food, clothing, transportation and other day-to- day requirements of the minor applicant No.2 and has not applied the settled principles governing determination of maintenance, including the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. Accordingly, it is prayed that the quantum of maintenance be suitably enhanced, preferably from the date of the application. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record, partly allowed the application >led under Section 144 of the BNSS. The Family Court concerned awarded a maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2 from the date of passing of order. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court has taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned has exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of >nancial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 7 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the documents appended with revision and >nding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance amount of Rs. 11,000/- per month to the applicants. I am of the considered 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. OEce is directed to send a certi>ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal