1 2026:CGHC:966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 13 of 2026 1 - Smt. Chandrakanteshwari Chaturvidani W/o Mahesh Kumar Chaturvidani, Aged About 28 Years R/o Daldalipara, Sakri P.S. And Tehsil Sakri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Drisha Chaturvidani, D/o Mahesh Kumar Chaturvidani Aged About 6 Years Minor Through The Natural Guardian, Chandrakanteshwari Chaturvidani, R/o Daldalipara, Sakri P.S. And Tehsil Sakri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Mahesh Kumar Chaturvidani S/o Late Tekram Chaturvidani Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Mohanabhatha, Daihanpara, Parthra Bharari, P.S. And Tehsil Sakri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shailesh Madhwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by learned First Additional Principal AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Judge, Family Court Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.771/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to applicant No.2 (total 2,500/- per month to the applicants) towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and applicant No.2 is their minor daughter. The marriage of applicant No.1 with the respondent was solemnized in the year 2023 at village Daldalipara, Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) according to Hindu rites and customs. From the said wedlock, applicant No.2, a daughter aged about six months, was born. Applicant No.1 is a housewife with no independent source of income, and the minor daughter is entirely dependent upon her. Despite this, the respondent has failed to make any arrangement for their maintenance. It is the case of the applicants that after marriage, applicant No.1 was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondent, his mother, elder brother and sister-in-law on account of dowry demand, particularly for a car. During her pregnancy, the respondent allegedly left applicant No.1 at her parental home without providing medical or financial support. After the birth of the child, the respondent’s behavior further deteriorated and he allegedly assaulted applicant No.1, compelling her to live separately along with the minor child. The respondent is stated to 3 be employed in the Irrigation Department as a fitter, earning approximately Rs. 50,000–60,000/- per month, but he has not disclosed his salary details or property documents before the Family Court. The applicants further allege that the respondent used abusive language and made derogatory remarks against applicant No.1. The Family Court, while partly allowing the application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., awarded Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs. 500/- per month to applicant No.2, totaling Rs. 2,500/-, which the applicants contend is grossly inadequate, leading to the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, and therefore not sustainable. The Court failed to properly appreciate the material facts and circumstances of the case while determining the quantum of maintenance. He further submits that the learned Family Court has awarded a meagre amount of maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs. 500/- to applicant No.2, totaling Rs. 2,500/- per month, which is grossly inadequate considering that the respondent is a government employee in the Irrigation Department, working as a fitter and earning approximately Rs. 50,000–60,000 per month. The Court failed to award just and reasonable maintenance commensurate with the respondent’s income and status. He also submits that the learned Family Court also ignored the fact that the respondent abandoned the applicant 4 during her pregnancy, did not bear any medical expenses during pregnancy, childbirth or thereafter, and subjected her to cruelty, compelling her to live separately. In view of the respondent’s cruelty and neglect, the impugned order awarding a paltry amount of maintenance deserves to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance, observing the two issues, first whether the respondent had deserted the applicants without any valid reason and second, whether the applicants were entitled to maintenance. The applicant–wife supported her case by producing documentary evidence such as Aadhaar cards, birth certificate of the minor daughter, marriage invitation card and photographs, and by filing her affidavit evidence. She deposed that she was harassed for dowry, abandoned during pregnancy, and was not provided any medical or financial support. Her testimony remained unrebutted as the respondent did not contest the proceedings. Further the Family Court held that the relationship of wife and minor daughter with the respondent was admitted and, therefore, the respondent was legally bound to 5 maintain them. The Court observed that no material was placed to show that the respondent was incapable of earning and presumed a healthy adult male to be capable of maintaining his wife and child. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the applicants are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 6. Considering the submissions 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 this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil