1 2025:CGHC:40559 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 409 of 2024 1. Vaishali Jain W/o Rahul Jain Aged About 25 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 2. Ku. Keshar Jain D/o Rahul Jain Aged About 2 Years Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Vaishali Jain, W/o Rahul Jain, Aged About 25 Yeas, R/o Shanti Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Rahul Jain S/o Lunkaran Jain Aged About 29 Years R/o Motitalab Para, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel, for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Anadi Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to modified/set- aside the maintenance awarded vide order dated ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.14 11:11:38 +0530 2 09.02.2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jagdalpur, passed in Criminal MJC No. 38/2022, wherein an amount of Rs. 3000/- per month to applicant no 1 and Rs 2000/- per Month to applicant 2; and allowed the Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. application of the applicants and award the maintenances tune of Rs 40,000/- per month. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband. The marriage of the applicant and the respondent took place on 08.07.2019 as per Hindu customs. The applicant is a Maharashtrian, and the respondent belongs to the Marwari community. Everything remained normal for some time after the marriage. Thereafter, the respondent started saying to applicant No. 1 that, because their marriage was a love marriage, he did not receive any dowry, otherwise he would have received at least ten lakh rupees in dowry. Meanwhile, a daughter, Keshar, was born out of the wedlock. After that, the respondent started coming home drunk every day, used to beat the applicant, and asked her to leave the house. Initially, the applicant could not understand why the respondent was behaving in this manner, but later she came to know that the respondent was having a love affair with another girl and, therefore, wanted to drive applicant No. 1 away. The respondent used to harass applicant No. 1 and humiliate her in every conversation, and one day he threw her out of the house. The applicant has no source of income and is facing a situation of starvation; therefore, she filed the application under Section 3 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court. 4. The respondent and his father have a wholesale shop in the name of Nakoda Textile in Pratapganj Para, Jagdalpur. The respondent is the only son of his father, and there is a big cloth shop in the name of the respondent’s father in village Karpayand. There is also a house in Motitalab Para and another in Lalbagh Housing Board Colony, which the respondent has given on rent. In this manner, the respondent earns approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from all these sources. 5. Learned Family Court passed an order directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant No. 2, without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the the impugned order dated 09.02.2024, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, in Criminal M.J.C. Case No. 38/2022, whereby an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant No. 2 was awarded, is bad in law, against the facts and circumstances of the case, and has been passed without appreciating the record and evidence on file. He submits that the respondent and his father have a wholesale shop in the name of Nakoda Textile in Pratapganj Para, Jagdalpur. The respondent is the only son of his father, and there is also a big cloth shop in the name of the respondent’s father in village Karpayand. Additionally, there is a house in Motitalab Para and another in Lalbagh Housing Board Colony, which the respondent has rented out. From all these sources, the respondent earns approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. He further submits that the quantum of interim maintenance awarded is erroneous and contrary to 4 law, it is liable to be set aside, and the quantum of maintenance should be enhanced to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- per month. The Income Tax Return of the respondent, showing him merely as an employee in his father’s shop, is only a device to conceal his actual income and to avoid paying a just and fair amount of maintenance to the applicants. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate the standard of living of the respondent and awarded maintenance without considering the social status of both the applicant and the respondent. He further submits that the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the financial position of the respondent as compared to that of the applicants. Learned Family Court has passed the impugned order erroneously and contrary to law. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and awarded maintenance of Rs. 3000/- to the applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2000/- to the applicant No. 2, observing the income, social and economic status of both parties and the current price index, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has 5 not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (RameshSinha) Chief Justice Abhishek