1 2026:CGHC:15547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 457 of 2026 1 - Smt. Chandradevi Sahu W/o Bhupendra Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Kailash Nagar, Station Chowck, Kumhari Tahsil- Paatan Distt- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Jiwansh Sahu S/o Bhupendra Sahu Aged About 8 Years Minor Applicant No2 Through Natural Guardian Mother Chandradevi Sahu R/o Kailash Nagar, Station Chowck, Kumhari Tahsil- Paatan Distt- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Ku. Muskan D/o Bhupendra Sahu Aged About 4 Years Minor Applicant No. 3 Through Natural Guardian Mother Chandradevi Sahu R/o Kailash Nagar, Station Chowck, Kumhari Tahsil- Paatan Distt- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Bhupendra Sahu S/o Raju Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o House No.161, Tatibandh Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.04.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is prayed, therefore, that the Hon'ble Court RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated- 07.02.2026 passed by learned 3rd additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Dist- Durg (C.G.) in M.C.C. No. 1116/2023 and enhance the amount as mentioned in the application filed under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and out of their wedlock, they have been blessed with two children, namely Jiwansh and Ku. Muskan (applicant Nos. 2 and 3), the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.04.2015 at Village Kampa, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, and thereafter the applicant resided in her matrimonial home, where after about one month, the respondent and his family members allegedly started demanding dowry and subjected her to cruelty, despite fulfillment of certain demands including a motorcycle by her parents, the respondent is further alleged to have developed illicit relations with other women, remained absent from home for prolonged periods, neglected the applicant, and on being complained against, the applicant was subjected to abuse and harassment by her in-laws, even after the birth of the children and a social settlement assuring improved conduct by the respondent, his behaviour did not change and he allegedly continued his relationship with one Sonam, and on being questioned, threatened the applicant and eventually started residing separately with the said woman, compelling the applicant to lodge complaints at Police 3 Station Kumhari, thereafter, on 26.08.2023, the applicant along with her minor children filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month on the ground that the respondent has sufficient income from a chicken shop and other sources and owns properties, upon notice, the respondent appeared and contested the claim by filing reply, and after recording evidence of both parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant Nos. 2 and 3(1000-1000). Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the said maintenance order, the present revision has been preferred by the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to settled principles of law, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the learned Court has committed a grave error in holding that the applicant/wife failed to prove the income of the respondent, despite the categorical admission of the non- applicant’s witness, namely Montu Yadav, who stated that he used to work in the chicken shop of the respondent’s father for a monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/-, which clearly indicates the existence of a running business and source of income. She further submits that the learned Court further failed to appreciate that the respondent himself admitted that the applicant No. 1 had lodged complaints at Police Station Kumhari regarding his illicit relationship with one Sonam, and had assured before the police that he would mend his 4 conduct and take proper care of his wife, which reflects his misconduct and neglect. She also submits that the learned Family Court also erred in not considering the specific contention of the applicant that the respondent is earning Rs. 45,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per month from his chicken shop, along with additional income of Rs. 15,000/- per month from rent, and is also possessed of immovable properties at various places, the learned Court below has committed gross irregularity by ignoring the material evidence and circumstances on record in support of the applicants, thereby awarding an inadequate amount of maintenance. It is further submitted that the Court further failed to consider that it is the respondent who deserted the applicants without sufficient cause, subjected the applicant to cruelty and dowry-related harassment, and that the applicant/wife has no independent source of income and is residing with and dependent upon her parents along with her minor children, and despite such circumstances, no maintenance has been awarded to the wife and only a meagre sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month has been granted for both the children, which is wholly insufficient in present times to meet even basic needs, and thus the maintenance amount deserves to be suitably enhanced. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the 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 and judiciously passed the impugned order, which does not suffer from 5 any illegality or perversity, the learned Court has properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case, including the relationship between the parties, the allegations made by the applicant, and the evidence led by both sides, and has exercised its discretion in a fair and reasonable manner while determining the quantum of maintenance, the learned Court has taken into account the absence of cogent and reliable evidence regarding the exact income of the respondent and has, therefore, awarded a just and appropriate amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month (Rs. 1,000/- each) to applicant Nos. 2 and 3, keeping in view the financial capacity of the respondent and the needs of the minor children, and thus, the impugned order being well-reasoned, balanced and in accordance with law. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan