1 2026:CGHC:12769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 217 of 2026 1 - Smt. Kalpana W/o Rojkumar Chauhan , Aged About 24 Years Adhar Card No. 323213537790 R/o Village And Post Kisdi, Police Station Balauda, Tahsil Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Yamini Chauhan D/o Rojkumar Chauhan Aged About 2 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Kalpana Wife Of Rojkumar, R/o Village And Post- Kisdi, Police Station- Balauda, Tahsil- Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Rojkumar Chauhan S/o Chamru Chauhan Aged About 28 Years Adhar Card No. 437598252504, Resident Of Village- Bodesara Post- Nawagarh P.S. And Tahsil- Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Sheshav Shekhar Barik, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.03.2026 1. This criminal revision has been ;led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and allow maintenance in RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 favour of applicant no. 1 and also enhance the maintenance allowed by the learned Family Court by order dated 24.11.2025 in favour of applicant no. 2, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 24.01.2022 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, and out of their wedlock, applicant No. 2 was born, who is presently residing with applicant No. 1. Thereafter, the applicants ;led an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the respondent, inter alia contending that applicant No. 1 had earlier contracted a love marriage with one Udaybhanu in the year 2015, who subsequently died in a road accident in the year 2017, and that the respondent had also previously married one Anusuiya, who later deserted him and remarried elsewhere. It was further pleaded that after her marriage with the respondent, applicant No. 1 duly discharged her matrimonial obligations, however, disputes arose between the parties on account of monetary issues, particularly regarding expenses for the birthday of the child, which escalated into quarrels, compelling applicant No. 1 to temporarily reside at her parental home. It is alleged that the respondent lodged a complaint against the family members of applicant No. 1 and thereafter attempted to forcibly take away applicant No. 2, which led to intervention by locals and convening of a social meeting, wherein the respondent refused to keep applicant No. 1. Subsequently, a report was lodged 3 at Police Station Balauda and the matter was referred to the Family Counseling Centre, Mahasamund, but no amicable settlement could be arrived at. It is the case of the applicants that the respondent has deserted them and, despite having suBcient means through agricultural work, has failed to provide any maintenance. Upon service of notice, the respondent denied the allegations and sought dismissal of the application. After hearing both sides, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 24.11.2025, partly allowed the application by granting maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No. 2, while rejecting the claim of applicant No. 1 on the ground that she is residing separately without suBcient cause. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the learned Family Court has awarded maintenance to applicant No. 2 on the lower side and has erroneously rejected the claim of applicant No. 1 on the ground that she is residing separately without suBcient cause. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court itself, in paragraph No. 31 of the impugned order, has categorically recorded a ;nding that during the proceedings before the Family Counseling Centre, applicant No. 1 was ready and willing to reside with the respondent, however, the respondent refused to keep her, yet, despite such clear ;nding, the learned Court has erroneously attributed fault upon applicant No. 1. It is contended that applicant No. 1 is always ready 4 and willing to discharge her matrimonial obligations, but since the respondent is not willing to keep her, she is constrained to live separately for a reasonable and justi;ed cause. It is further submitted that applicant No. 1 is a household lady having no independent source of income and is wholly dependent upon the respondent. It is also contended that the maintenance awarded in favour of applicant No. 2 is grossly inadequate considering the prevailing cost of living and rising prices of essential commodities, and that applicant No. 2 requires proper expenses towards food, clothing, education, school fees, tuition fees, books, uniform and other necessities, which cannot be met with the meagre amount awarded. It is lastly submitted that applicant No. 1, being the legally wedded wife of the respondent, is entitled to live with dignity and enjoy a standard of living commensurate with that of the respondent, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside to the aforesaid extent. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that this matter was previously listed before this Court on 24.02.2026, and on the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the matter was referred to mediation before the Mediation Centre of this Court, where proceedings were scheduled on 12.03.2026, however, both parties failed to appear and, consequently, the mediation proceedings could not succeed and the same ended in failure. 5 6. Further from the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 24.01.2022 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, and out of their wedlock, applicant No. 2 was born, who is presently residing with applicant No. 1. The applicants thereafter ;led an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the respondent, raising various allegations with regard to matrimonial discord and desertion. Upon due consideration of the pleadings and material available on record, and after aDording adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 24.11.2025, partly allowed the application by granting maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No. 2 and rightly rejected the claim of applicant No. 1 on the ground that she is residing separately without suBcient and reasonable cause. The learned Family Court has duly appreciated the evidence on record and has recorded cogent ;ndings, including the circumstances leading to the dispute between the parties, and has come to a just and proper conclusion that applicant No. 1 failed to establish suBcient cause for living separately. The ;ndings so recorded are based on proper appreciation of facts. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the ;nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in;rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by 6 this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certi;ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan