1 2026:CGHC:4424 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 489 of 2024 1. Smt. Sanjeshwari Lahre W/o Dipendra Lahre Aged About 32 Years. 2. Anvesh Lahre S/o Dipendra Lahre Aged About 5 Years R/o Sakin- Pendri, P.S. Pamgarh, Hal Mukam- Nariyara, P.S.- Mulmula, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Dipendra Lahre R/o Sakinan- Pendri, P.S. Pamgarh, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh … Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.53/2023, wherein an amount of Rs.3,500/- per month to applicant No.2 has been awarded by the learned Family Court and rejected the application with respect to applicant No.1. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance from the non-applicant husband. The PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.29 18:27:55 +0530 2 marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant was solemnized on 15.05.2016 in accordance with Hindu customs. The non-applicant used to demand money from the applicant. Upon her failure to meet such demands, the non-applicant verbally abused and physically assaulted her and ultimately sent her to her parental home. The applicant has no independent source of income and is facing acute financial hardship. Consequently, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court. The non-applicant is employed as a teacher at Bal Sanskar Vijay Bhuvan Bhaskar Singh School, Akaltara, and earns a monthly salary of approximately Rs.30,000. In addition, he owns about 8 acres of agricultural land situated at Gram Pendri, from which he earns approximately Rs.5,00,000 annually. It is submitted that the quantum of maintenance awarded is erroneous and contrary to law and is therefore liable to be modified or set aside. Vide order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bastar, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 53/2023, maintenance of Rs.3,500 per month was awarded to applicant No. 2. The applicants seek modification of the said order and enhancement of maintenance to Rs.15,000 per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 06.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 53/2023, awarding maintenance of Rs.3,500 per month to applicant No. 2, is bad in law and has been passed without proper appreciation of the pleadings, record, and evidence on file. The non-applicant produced his salary certificate before the learned Family Court, which reflects his net monthly salary as Rs.38,172. The non-applicant is employed as a teacher at Bal Sanskar Vijay Bhuvan Bhaskar Singh School, Akaltara, earning a 3 monthly salary of approximately Rs.30,000, and further owns 8 acres of agricultural land situated at Gram Pendri, from which he earns approximately Rs.5,00,000 annually. The quantum of interim maintenance awarded is erroneous, inadequate, and contrary to law, and therefore liable to be set aside, with maintenance enhanced to Rs.15,000 per month. The applicant has no independent source of income and is facing acute financial hardship. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the standard of living of the non-applicant and did not award maintenance commensurate with the social status of the parties. The learned Family Court failed to properly consider the financial position and earning capacity of the non-applicant as well as the needs of the applicants. The learned Family Court has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner, contrary to law and the facts of the case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order, pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Let the certified copy of the this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti