1 2026:CGHC:20177 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 568 of 2026 1 - Smt. Pushplata W/o Dashrathlal Bhaskar Aged About 34 Years R/o Dhourbhata, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh Current Address Daukapa, Tahsil Lalpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 2 - Prisha Bhaskar D/o Dashrathlal Bhaskar Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Pushplata Bhaskar, R/o Dhourbhata, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh Current Address Daukapa, Tahsil Lalpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Dashrathlal Bhaskar S/o Shankarlal Aged About 37 Years R/o Dhourbhata, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ankur Diwan, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case. 161/2025, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 144 of BNSS filed by the applicants, and directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to the applicants as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and out of the wedlock, a child namely RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 applicant No.2 Priya Bhaskar born in the year 2023 in Village Daukapa. The respondent, wife has filed an application under Section 144 of BNSS before the learned Judge, Family Court Mungeli as Misc. Criminal Case No. 161/2025 stating that the respondent is a regular alcohol drinker and from the scratch, the respondent after drinking alcohol, started physically and mentally harassing the applicant No. 1 for dowry. It was also mentioned in the application that 2 children were also born from the wedlock, who died in the year 2014 and 2020 and the respondent is also in relation with other women and in the month of April 2025, the respondent physically and mentally harasses the applicant No. 1, hence left her matrimonial home and claimed maintenance amount from the respondent/husband and also written complainant was submitted by the applicant No.1 before the PS, Lormi on 05.07.2025. The respondent earns Rs 45,000 per month in construction works and denies to maintain her wife and child, which leads to filing of this application under Section 144 BNSS. On 13.11.2025, the matter was fixed for the presence of the respondent before the Family Court, Mungeli But the notice was returned with the tip denied to accept the notice by the respondent and hence, ex-parte proceedings has been initiated against the respondent before the Family Court, Mungeli. 4. Issues were framed in the matter and no reply was presented by the respondent neither any evidence were lead in the matter by the respondent. The applicants in support of her application presented affidavit of herself and 2 other witness namely, Father Bedram Khande and one Dinesh Prasad and also documents were exhibited, namely copy of the written compliant dated 05.07.2025, as Exhibit A-1/c and 3 other documents were also exhibited. The other witnesses in examination before the Court supported the case of the applicants and the applicants are unable to maintain herself as they are residing in her parental home and the applicant No.2 being a minor, requires due care, protection, vaccination and other nutrients also. The learned Family Court vide its impugned order dated 10.03.2026 has held that the allegations which were levied against the respondent remains unrebutted and unchallenged, and hence, the applicants are entitled for maintenance from the respondent, but with respect to earning amount of RS 45,000per month by the respondent, no document has been presented by the applicants but held that the respondent is also a safely able-bodied person and no economic help was given to the applicants by the respondent and being a father and husband, the liability to maintain his wife and child, lies on the respondent and hence, granted maintenance amount of Rs 1500/- per month to the applicants (1000/- per month to the applicant No.1/wife and 500/- per month to the applicant No.2/child) 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. It is further submitted that the respondent being a healthy person earning Rs. 45,000/- per month from construction works and hence, maintenance amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month awarded to the applicants is liable to be enhanced. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be modified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar