1 2026:CGHC:19901 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 577 of 2026 1 - Smt. Priti Choubey W/o Mahendra Kumar Choubey Aged About 39 Years R/o C/o Veni Madhav Sharma, House No. Mig- 02, 385/02, D.D.U. Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Manya Choubey D/o Mahendra Kumar Choubey Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Priti Choubey, R/o C/o Veni Madhav Sharma, House No. Mig- 02, 385/02, D.D.U. Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh .. Applicant(s) versus Mahendra Kumar Choubey S/o Late Nalini Ranjan Choubey Aged About 47 Years R/o Govt. Lal Kalind Singh College, Antagarh, District Kanker (Uttar Bastar) Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.04.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and modify/enhance impugned maintenance amount of order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge family Court Raipur, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 District Raipur Chhattisgarh in M.C.C. No. 607/2021 and also may kindly be granted maintenance amount for applicant No. 1 as sought by the applicant in maintenance application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for seeking granting maintenance amount of Rs. 40,000/- per month, in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case are that it is an admitted fact that the applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant had solemnized their marriage on 07.03.2011 according to Hindu rituals and customs. Since then, the applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant were peacefully living together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock, the applicant No. 2 was born. The application in brief is that the applicant No. 1 and the non- applicant had a good relationship and after some time of marriage, the non-applicant started harassing and mentally torturing the applicant No. 1 on account of less dowry and also used filthy language with the applicant No. 1. Due to the cruel acts of the non-applicant, the applicant No. 1 along with applicant No. 2 started living separately in her parental house and she has no source of income. The non- applicant is working as a Lab Technician in Government Lal Kalind Singh College, Antagarh, District Kanker and is earning an amount of Rs. 60,000/- per month as salary and is also having agricultural land admeasuring about 18 acres, on account of which he is earning an annual income of Rs. 12,00,000/-. Therefore, the applicants have filed the present application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 40,000/- per month from the non- applicant. 3. The non-applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and denied the contentions raised by the applicants. 3 4. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 13.03.2026, whereby the non-applicant/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4500/- per month towards maintenance to the applicant No. 2/daughter but with respect to applicant No. 1/ wife, dismissed her application on the ground that she has been living separately from her husband without any sufficient cause and further order to bear Rs. 1000/- for the proceedings. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents available on record. It is further submitted that the applicant No. 1 was compelled to leave her matrimonial house due to the cruelty, harassment and mental as well as physical torture caused by the non-applicant. The applicants have no independent source of income and are not dependent upon any person for their livelihood. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and the non-applicant is working as a Lab Technician in Government Lal Kalind Singh College, Antagarh, District Kanker, earning approximately Rs. 60,000/- per month and is also possessed of agricultural land admeasuring about 18 acres, from which he earns an annual income of about Rs. 12,00,000/-. Despite having sufficient means, the non-applicant is fully capable of paying maintenance as claimed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., however, the learned Family Court has awarded a meagre amount, which is insufficient for the survival of the applicants and is liable to be enhanced. It is further submitted that applicant No. 2 is a minor daughter aged about 9 years 4 and the applicant No. 1 is facing great hardship in maintaining and taking care of her minor daughter as well as herself. The applicant No. 1 has no source of income whatsoever for her livelihood. It is also submitted that the applicants have not suppressed any material facts, whereas the non-applicant has not disclosed his true income and despite the material available on record, the learned Family Court has granted a very low amount of maintenance, which is unsatisfactory. The learned Family Court has also erred in properly appreciating the evidence regarding the income and sources of the non-applicant and has recorded incorrect findings in this regard. It is further submitted that the non-applicant has made no effort to cohabit with the applicant No. 1, whereas the applicant No. 1 had made sincere efforts to live with the non-applicant at the matrimonial house, but she was subjected to continuous harassment and cruelty without any justifiable reason. It is also submitted that as per law, the applicants are fully entitled to receive maintenance commensurate with the income of the non-applicant and if the maintenance amount is not enhanced, the applicants shall face severe hardship in their livelihood, adversely affecting their present and future. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside/modified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the learned Family Court concerned, it transpires that an amount of Rs. 4500/- per month has been awarded towards maintenance to the applicant No. 2/daughter and after appreciating the the same, rejected the application of the applicant No.1/wife. It appears that the learned 5 Family Court, upon appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting maintenance solely to the minor daughter, considering her status as a dependent and the legal obligation of the father to maintain her. The absence of any finding or relief regarding applicant No.1 indicates that the Court did not find sufficient grounds to allow her claim for maintenance, which, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be erroneous or unjustified. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal