1 CGHC010344642026 2026:CGHC:39848 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1146 of 2026 1 - Rohit Shrivastav S/o Late S. N. Shrivastav Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Sapna Studio, Manjhapara, Kanker District North Bastar Kanker C. G. ... Applicant versus 1 - Shrimati Pooja Shrivastava W/o Rohit Shrivastav Aged About 39 Years All R/o Near Sapna Studio, Manjhapara, Kanker District North Bastar Kanker C. G. ---- Applicants. 2 - Ronit Shrivastav S/o Rohit Shrivastav Aged About 9 Years Respondent No. 2 And 3 Are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Shrimati Pooja Shrivastav W/o Rohit Shrivastav Aged About 39 Years. --R/o Near Sapna Studio, Manjhapara, Kanker District North Bastar Kanker C. G. ----Applicants. 3 - Romit Shrivastav S/o Rohit Shrivastav Aged About 8 Years Respondent No. 2 And 3 Are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Shrimati Pooja Shrivastav W/o Rohit Shrivastav Aged About 39 Years. ... Respondents (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondents : - (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.09.16 10:07:34 +0530 2 11/09/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the impugned order dated 05.08.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (CG) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.03/2025 (Smt. Pooja Shrivastav and Others vs. Rohit Shrivastav), whereby learned Family Court has partly allowed the application preferred by the respondents under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth, “BNSS”) and awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month in their favour. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, vide impugned order 05.08.2026, learned Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month in favour of the respondents (wife and sons), which is on the higher side. He further submits that the applicant runs a photo studio at Kanker and earns only Rs.10-15,000/- per month. Therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded in favour of the respondents is excessive. Hence, he prays that the maintenance amount may suitably be reduced. 4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the applicant has sufficient source of income. Learned Family Court has discussed about income of the applicant in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment which shows that the applicant does not run only a photo studio; rather, his family is also having approximately 65 acres of agricultural land, though the same is stated to be jointly held. It has further been noticed that the applicant also runs a cloud kitchen. Considering these sources of income, the learned Family Court has assessed the applicant's monthly income at Rs.40-50,000/- which is found to be reasonable from perusal of the impugned order. Having considered the 3 aforesaid income of the applicant and the number of persons entitled to maintenance, this Court is of the considered opinion that the maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month awarded by the learned Family Court in favour of the respondents and against the applicant/husband cannot be said to be excessive or on the higher side in any manner. 5. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision is dismissed at the motion stage. 6. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar