1 2026:CGHC:3307 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 111 of 2026 Setkumari Bagh W/o Anand Bagh, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bhagatdevri, Near Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Anand Bagh S/o Chandrashekhar Bagh, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Salhetarai, Near Basna, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 2led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that revision petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 31.10.2025 may kindly be set-aside and the amount of maintenance may kindly be enhanced from Rs.5000 to R.15000, in the interest of Justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant is the legally wedded 2rst wife of the non-applicant, and their marriage was RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 solemnized in the year 2006 at Village Bhagat Deori in accordance with Hindu customs and traditions. Out of the said wedlock, two minor children, namely Priyanshu Bagh and Himanshu Bagh, were born, who are presently residing with the non-applicant. It is the case of the applicant that the non-applicant is a habitual drunkard and used to subject her to physical cruelty, besides maintaining illicit relationships with other women. It is further alleged that the non-applicant contracted a second marriage with one Durga at Arya Samaj during the subsistence of the 2rst marriage, from whom he also has a child, rendering the said marriage illegal. Despite repeated e:orts by the applicant and her family members to resolve the dispute through social meetings, the non-applicant refused to participate and ultimately ousted the applicant from the matrimonial home about seven years ago and has not paid any maintenance thereafter. Consequently, the applicant 2led Maintenance Case No. 89/2024 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saraipali Camp, District Mahasamund (C.G.), wherein by order dated 31.10.2025, interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month was awarded in her favour. It is further pleaded that the non-applicant is a police constable earning a net monthly salary of Rs.46,629/-, and the amount awarded is grossly insuAcient to meet the basic and necessary expenses of the applicant, whose family is also 2nancially weak, hence this revision seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs.15,000/- per month. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has awarded a very meagre amount of interim maintenance, 3 which is wholly insuAcient to meet the applicant’s day-to-day living expenses and other essential needs. It is contended that the learned Court has already recorded a clear 2nding that the applicant is unable to maintain herself and has suAcient and justi2able reasons to reside separately, particularly in view of the fact that the non-applicant has contracted a second marriage and brought another woman as his wife. It is further submitted that the non- applicant is a salaried police constable drawing a basic salary of Rs.50,729/- per month and even after deductions receives a net salary of Rs.46,629/-, therefore at least one-third of his income ought to have been awarded as maintenance in favour of the applicant. Despite deciding the core issues regarding entitlement in favour of the applicant, the learned Trial Court has erred in awarding only Rs.5,000/- per month, which is neither just nor reasonable and deserves enhancement to at least Rs.15,000/- per month. It is also submitted that the applicant has been residing with her parental family for the last seven years, whose 2nancial condition is poor, and during this entire period the non-applicant has not paid a single penny towards her maintenance, thereby causing grave hardship to the applicant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings, material placed on record and the rival submissions of the parties, has rightly held that the applicant is the legally wedded 2rst wife of 4 the non-applicant and that she has been living separately for just and suAcient reasons. The Court has also correctly taken note of the allegations of cruelty and the subsistence of a second marriage contracted by the non-applicant, which prima facie establishes neglect on his part. While assessing the interim maintenance, the learned Family Court has judiciously exercised its discretion by balancing the needs of the applicant with the income, liabilities and service conditions of the non-applicant, who is a salaried police constable. The grant of interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month by order dated 31.10.2025 cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal, as the same is in consonance with the settled principles governing interim maintenance, being a tentative arrangement subject to 2nal adjudication. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 2nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in2rmity 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 certi2ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan