1 2026:CGHC:2206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 53 of 2026 1 - Smt. Ashiya Ahmed W/o Irshad Ahmed Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 16 Bnc Mill Chawl Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Palak Ahmed D/o Irshad Ahmed Aged About 12 Years Minor Are Being Represented Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Ashiya Ahmed, W/o Irshad Ahmed, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 16 Bnc Mill Chawl Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Ayan Ahmed D/o Irshad Ahmed Aged About 8 Years Minor Are Being Represented Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Ashiya Ahmed, W/o Irshad Ahmed, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 16 Bnc Mill Chawl Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Irshad Ahmed S/o Nazir Ahmed Aged About 36 Years R/o Karsatar Police Ubhav Baisi Mohalla In Front Of Atta Chakki District Baliya (U.P.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.01.2026 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 1. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the impugned judgment dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), passed in M.J.C. Case No. 173/2024, may kindly be set-aside and the amount of maintenance awarded to the applicants may kindly be enhanced commensurate with the income, status and earning capacity of the respondent and direct the respondent to pay the enhanced maintenance from the date of 1ling of the application.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants have ;led an application under Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. applicant No. 1 is the wife, applicant No. 2 is the minor daughter, and applicant No. 3 is the minor son of the non- applicant/husband. The applicants have ;led the present application seeking alteration and enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 80,000/- per month. It has been averred by the applicants that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant/husband was solemnized about 19 years ago according to Muslim rites and customs and out of the said wedlock, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were born. The applicant No.1 has further submitted in her application that the non-applicant/husband and his mother subjected applicant No. 1 to physical and mental cruelty on the pretext of bringing insu?cient dowry and ultimately forced her to leave the matrimonial 3 home. She has further submitted that the non-applicant/husband is ;nancially well-o@ and is engaged in business, earning approximately Rs. 18 to 20 lakhs per annum, yet he has neglected and refused to maintain the applicants. It has further been submitted that applicant No. 1 is presently dependent upon her aged parents and is unable to meet the growing expenses of the minor children, including education, medical treatment, clothing, and other daily necessities. Although a maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month was ordered by the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 120/2022 vide order dated 28.11.2023, due to a change in circumstances and escalation in the cost of living, the said amount is grossly inadequate. Therefore, applicant No. 1 moved an application for alteration and enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 80,000/- per month, as the applicants are legally entitled to the same. 3. The learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 04.09.2025, whereby the learned Family Court, while partly allowing the application, enhanced the earlier maintenance by increasing the amount payable to applicant No. 1 from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,500/- per month, to applicant No. 2 from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month, and to applicant No. 3 from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,500/- per month, thereby ;xing the total maintenance at Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of the order. Earlier, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 28.11.2023, had decided the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ;led by the applicants, wherein 4 maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,500/-, Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- per month was awarded to applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the enhancement granted by the learned Family Court, ;xing the total maintenance at a meagre amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month, is grossly inadequate and wholly insu?cient in view of the present-day cost of living, particularly when the non-applicant/husband is ;nancially sound and earning approximately Rs. 18–20 lakhs per annum. It is further submitted that the impugned order is in clear and blatant violation of the well-settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh v. Neha, as the denial of adequate maintenance infringes upon the legal rights and statutory protections available to the applicants. She further contends that despite the applicants placing on record documentary evidence relating to the educational expenses of applicant Nos. 2 and 3, the learned Family Court has failed to properly consider and discuss the same in the impugned order. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has gravely erred in not appreciating the fact that applicant Nos. 2 and 3, being minor children, are permanently residing with applicant No. 1, and their entire expenses are solely borne by her. The burden of maintaining the minor children cannot be diluted by awarding a paltry amount, which is wholly insu?cient to meet their basic necessities. It is also submitted that the learned Court ought to have acknowledged that the non-applicant/husband is the sole earning member and a proper balance ought to have been struck while 5 determining the maintenance amount. The impugned order is therefore bad in law, perverse and arbitrary. He further submits that only statutory deductions are permissible as per the settled law of the Hon’ble Courts, and the learned Family Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record by not appreciating the true scope and spirit of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Accordingly, she prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be modi;ed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and and material available on record, passed the order on 04.09.2025, whereby enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.3,000/- per month to Rs.6,000/- per month on the premise that the inGation rate has gone up and therefore, the applicants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- While passing the said order, the learned Family Court concerned had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of ;nancial capability of the non- applicant and the genuine needs of the applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 6 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the ;ndings recorded by the learned Family Court concerned, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in;rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. O?ce is directed to send a certi;ed copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal