1 2026:CGHC:11721 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 355 of 2026 1 - Smt. Sumitra Giri W/o Harkesh Giri Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Harsadand Giripara Jheradih Police Station Lundra District- Surguja (C.G.) Present Address- Village- Dorna P.S. And Tahsil- Lundra District- Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Jayant Giri S/o Harkesh Giri Aged About 1 Years (7 Month Through Natural Guardian Her Mother Namely Smt. Sumitra Giri Appellant No.01) R/o Village- Harsadand Giripara Jheradih Police Station Lundra District- Surguja (C.G.) Present Address- Village- Dorna P.S. And Tahsil- Lundra District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Harkesh Giri S/o Genwa Giri Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Harsadand Giripara Jheradih Police Station Lundra District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11 /03/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.145/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 144 BNSS filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/ per- month to applicant No.2/son and rejected the application in favour of applicant No.1. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the appellants filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS before the learned Family Court, Ambikapur seeking maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month, stating inter alia that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 09.05.2022 in accordance with Hindu customs and rituals. It was alleged that soon after the marriage, the respondent and his family members started demanding dowry and subjected applicant No.1 to cruelty and harassment. The appellants further pleaded that the respondent was maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman and on account of the said relationship he used to subject applicant No.1 to continuous physical and mental cruelty, including beating her without any just cause and frequently returning home late at night after staying outside, thereby creating 3 an atmosphere of fear and insecurity for her. It was also pleaded that the appellants have no independent source of income and are entirely dependent upon the respondent for their maintenance, whereas the respondent owns two residential houses in Village Harsadand and also runs a grocery shop near the house of his parents and is engaged in agricultural activities, which indicates that he is financially capable of maintaining the appellants. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court framed the issues and partly allowed the application by granting maintenance only to appellant No.2 (minor child) to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month and rejected the claim of applicant No.1, being aggrieved by which the appellants have preferred the present revision before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has erred in holding that the allegations of cruelty and harassment were vague, despite the fact that specific pleadings and evidence were placed on record regarding monetary demands of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-, pregnancy- related cruelty, physical assault and police complaints. The learned Court also failed to properly appreciate the statements of the appellants and their witnesses, which clearly support the case of the appellants. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Court below are contrary to the material available on record and the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the learned Family Court 4 further failed to appreciate that economic abuse, repeated monetary demands, physical cruelty and mental harassment constitute sufficient cause for a wife to live separately from her husband. The rejection of maintenance to applicant No.1 on the ground that she failed to prove sufficient cause is based on an incorrect appreciation of facts and law. Moreover, the respondent is an able-bodied person who runs a grocery shop and also possesses agricultural land and residential properties, yet the learned Court below failed to make a realistic assessment of his earning capacity. He also submits that the learned Family Court has arbitrarily assessed the income of the respondent at Rs.10,000/- per month without conducting any proper inquiry into his actual income, and has awarded only Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the minor child. The said amount is grossly inadequate and insufficient to meet even the basic necessities such as food, clothing, medical treatment and educational expenses of the child. Therefore, the impugned order warrants interference by this Court and the maintenance amount deserves to be suitably enhanced. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 144 BNSS filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay 5 Rs.3,000/ per- month to applicant No.2/son and rejected the application in favour of applicant No.1, holding that applicant No.1 failed to establish that she had sufficient and reasonable cause to live separately from the respondent. The learned Court observed that the allegations of dowry demand, cruelty and the respondent’s alleged illicit relationship were vague and unsupported by specific dates, details or reliable evidence, and therefore could not be accepted as proved. The Court further noted that the applicant herself admitted during cross-examination that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and returned to her parental house after the compromise between the parties, thereby indicating that she was not willing to reside with the respondent. 6. The learned Family Court further held that the respondent, being the legally wedded husband and father of applicant No.2, is under a statutory obligation to maintain his minor child. Considering that the respondent is a healthy and able-bodied person engaged in labour work and is presumed to earn approximately Rs.10,000/- per month, the Court found him financially capable of providing maintenance to the minor child. Accordingly, taking into account the social status of the parties, the needs of the minor child and the financial capacity of the respondent, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.2, while dismissing the claim of applicant No.1 for maintenance. 6 7. Considering the submissions 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil