1 2026:CGHC:16093 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 475 of 2026 Surendra Manjhi S/o Shri Pyari Manjhi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Katel Kudaribahra, P.S. And Tahsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Bilasini Manjhi W/o Surendra Manjhi Aged About 27 Years R/o Mudpahar (Potapara) Post Sirko, P.S. And Tahsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Omkar Manjhi S/o Surendra Manjhi Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bilasini Manjhi, W/o Surendra Manjhi, R/o Mudpahar (Potapara) Post Sirko, P.S. And Tahsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Chandrasen Chouhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.04.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set-aside impugned order dated RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Family Court Mahasamund Link Court Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 97/2024 or granted maintenance amount of Rs. 3,500/- may be reduced, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month, stating that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized in the year 2017 as per Hindu rites and customs, and out of the said wedlock, respondent No.2 was born. It is alleged that after some time of marriage, the applicant and his family members subjected respondent No.1 to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry, due to which she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and reside at her parental house along with respondent No.2, having no independent source of income, whereas the applicant is stated to be employed in the Electricity Board earning about Rs.15,000/- per month and also possessing agricultural land. Upon notice, the applicant appeared and filed his reply denying all the allegations and contending that respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause. Thereafter, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 29.01.2026, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month (Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- to respondent No.2). Being aggrieved by the said order, 3 the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence on record, and thus liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the applicant never treated respondent No.1 with cruelty and had always made efforts to maintain the matrimonial relationship, whereas respondent No.1, without any sufficient cause, voluntarily left the matrimonial home and has been residing separately. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 has herself admitted in her statement that she had received a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- towards full and final settlement along with her stridhan, and has also admitted that the applicant was working only for a limited period from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025 in the Electricity Board under a contractor, and is presently unemployed with no stable source of income. He further submits that as per the social meeting dated 09.07.2023, a compromise was arrived at between the parties for dissolution of marriage, and thereafter the applicant has solemnized a second marriage. It is also submitted that the applicant has the responsibility of maintaining his elder son, aged mother, and other dependent family members, and is facing serious financial hardship. It is argued that the learned Family Court failed to consider these material aspects and the actual financial condition of the applicant, and has mechanically awarded maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month without proper assessment of income. It is thus submitted that since respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home without 4 sufficient cause and is not entitled to maintenance under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S., the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 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 has rightly appreciated the facts and evidence on record and has passed the impugned order in accordance with law, leaving no ground for interference. Further the learned family Court considering the fact that that the marriage between the parties and the birth of respondent No.2 are undisputed, and the material placed on record clearly establishes that respondent No.1 was subjected to cruelty and was compelled to reside separately along with the minor child, having no independent source of income. The learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings and evidence, has reasonably assessed the financial capacity of the applicant and has awarded a modest and just amount of Rs.3,500/- per month towards maintenance, which cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 5 this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan