1 2026:CGHC:9099 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 271 of 2026 1 - Smt. Preeti Uike W/o Chandraprakash Singh Uike Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Ganesh Nagar, Under Over Bridge, Chuchuhiyapara Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Khushi D/o Chandraprakash Singh Uike Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Preeti Uike (Applicant No.1) Resident Of Ganesh Nagar, Under Over Bridge, Chuchuhiyapara Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Bhoumik Singh Uike D/o Chandraprakash Singh Uike Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt Preeti Uike (Applicant No.1) Resident Of Ganesh Nagar, Under Over Bridge, Chuchuhiyapara Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Yashpreet Uike S/o Chandraprakash Singh Uike Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Preeti Uike (Applicant No.1) Resident Of Ganesh Nagar, Under Over Bridge, Chuchuhiyapara Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Chandraprakash Singh S/o Late Taran Singh Uike Aged About 40 Years Resident Of 6/298, Ram Nagar Road Ramnagar Gudhiyari Jaihind Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) At Present Station Master Dadhapara Police Station Chakarbhatha District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 For Applicants : Ms. Anamika Tiwari, Advocate For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.02.2026 1. Heard Ms. Anamika Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to enhance the maintenance amount awarded in the order dated 22-01-2026 (Annexure A-1) from 15000/- to 50,000/- per months or as prayed in the application prayed before the learned learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants have >led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month from the non-applicant. The admitted facts of the case are that the marriage of applicant No. 1 was solemnized with the non-applicant on 28.05.2013 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals and out of their wedlock, applicant Nos. 2 to 4 were born. It is further stated that at the time of marriage, the family members of applicant No. 1 had given gifts and articles as per their status and capacity. However, after the marriage, the non- applicant/husband allegedly started subjecting applicant No. 1 to cruelty while under the inAuence of alcohol. It is averred that the non-applicant is working in the Railway Department on the post of 3 S.M.-01/D.P.M., but he did not provide suBcient money for household expenses, spent his earnings on liquor and assaulted and abused applicant No. 1 in >lthy language. It is further the case of the applicants that the non-applicant is earning approximately ₹70,000/- per month from his employment in the Railway Department, and despite having suBcient income, he has neglected and refused to maintain the applicants. Therefore, the applicants >led the application seeking maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month before the learned Family Court concerned. 4. The non-applicant was proceeded ex parte and did not >le any reply to contest the claim. 5. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the learned Family Court concerned, vide order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure A/1), awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month in total (Rs. 6,000/- to applicant No. 1, Rs. 4,000/- to applicant No. 2, Rs. 3,000/- to applicant No. 3, and Rs. 2,000/- to applicant No. 4) from the date of passing of the order. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the maintenance amount so awarded, the present revision has been >led seeking enhancement of the maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that while granting maintenance, the learned Family Court has failed to properly assess and consider the actual income and >nancial capacity of the non- applicant and has awarded a meagre amount of maintenance to the applicants. It is contended that the learned Family Court overlooked the fact that applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are minor, school-going children aged about 10 years, 8 years and 4 years respectively and that their 4 educational and day-to-day expenses have not been adequately taken into account, resulting in the maintenance being >xed on the lower side. It is further submitted that it is undisputed that the non- applicant is earning approximately ₹70,000/- per month from his employment and is also possessed of other properties; however, these aspects were not properly appreciated by the learned Family Court while awarding a total sum of only ₹15,000/- per month, which is grossly inadequate and liable to be enhanced. She also submits that the non-applicant has subjected applicant No. 1 to cruelty and harassment, due to which she is unable to reside with him along with the children and apprehends danger to her life. It is further contended that applicant No. 1 has no independent source of income and is entirely dependent and therefore, considering the status, income and standard of living of the non-applicant, the applicants are entitled to enhanced maintenance as claimed. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside/modi>ed. 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 concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the applicants, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. >led by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month in total (Rs. 6,000/- to applicant No. 1, Rs. 4,000/- to applicant No. 2, Rs. 3,000/- to applicant No. 3 and Rs. 2,000/- to applicant No. 4) from 5 the date of passing of the order, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the >nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the 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. OBce is directed to send a copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal