1 2026:CGHC:928 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 47 of 2023 1 - Smt. Mohni Bai W/o Shri Bodhi Ram Sonkar, Aged About 27 Years R/o Daupara Arjunda, Police Station Arjunda, Thesil Gunderdehi District Balod Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhupesh Kumar S/o Shri Bodhi Ram Sonkar, Aged About 2 Years (Minor Applicant No. 2 Through Smt. Mohni Bai W/o Shri Bodh Ram Sonkar Aged About 27 Years Caste Sonker R/o Daupara Arjunda, Police Station Arjunda, Thesil Gunderdehi District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Bodhi Ram Sonkar S/o Shri Kukhi Ram, Aged About 30 Years Caste Sonkar R/o Village Murra (Mundra), Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 the amount of maintenance may kindly be enhanced as per the todays livelihood condition the impugned order dated 31.10.2022, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants 8led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod, seeking maintenance along with an application for grant of interim maintenance to the tune of ₹35,000/- per month. In the said application, applicant No.1/wife stated that the non-applicant is her legally wedded husband and that their marriage was solemnized on 08.03.2014. It was further stated that soon after the marriage, despite mediation by respectable persons and counselling proceedings, the non- applicant subjected applicant No.1 to continuous harassment, and ultimately compelled her to leave the matrimonial home. It was contended that despite having su@cient means, the non-applicant failed and neglected to maintain the applicants, thereby constraining them to 8le the application for maintenance. 3. After service of notice, the non-applicant 8led his reply denying all the allegations made in the application and categorically submitted that the applicants had voluntarily and wilfully left the matrimonial home without any just or su@cient cause. 4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 01.11.2022, awarded maintenance to the tune of ₹5,000/- per month, out of which ₹3,500/- per month was awarded to applicant No.1 and ₹1,500/- per month to applicant No.2. The learned Family Court further observed that, in pursuance 3 of the earlier order dated 07.03.2018, the non-applicant has been paying interim maintenance of ₹2,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and ₹1,000/- per month to applicant No.2, totaling ₹3,000/- per month and the said amount shall be duly adjusted against the 8nal maintenance payable to the applicants. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 01.11.2022 is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. He further submits that as per the pleading of the parties, the applicants have proved the fact that the non- applicant is an earning member having a kirana shop and he is also having agricultural land in his name and looking to the above circumstance the applicants are entitle to get 1/3 amount of the salary as maintenance. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the non-applicant has left the applicants without any reasonable cause. The learned Family Court should have seen that the non-applicant is having su@cient means of earning and he is duty bound to maintain the applicant. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 8led by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs. 3500/-per month to the applicant No.1/wife and 4 Rs. 1500/- per month to the applicant No.2/son (total 5000/-), observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the 8nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in8rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. O@ce is directed to send a certi8ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal