1 2025:CGHC:29191 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 23 of 2020 1. Yashoda Jaiswal W/o Soman Aged About 34 Years R/o Vivekanand Gali No.4, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., 2. Ku. Shivani D/o Soman Jaiswal Aged About 7 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Yashoda Jaiswal Wife Of Soman Jaiswal, R/o Vivekanand Gali No.4, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., 3. Tejas Jaiswal S/o Soman Jaiswal Aged About 5 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Yashoda Jaiswal Wife Of Soman Jaiswal, R/o Vivekanand Gali No.4, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., ... Applicants versus Soman Jaiswal S/o Ramkumar Jaiswal Aged About 45 Years Occupation Cultivator, R/o Kherwar, Police Station Pipariya, Post Bharka, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.01 10:52:13 +0530 2 aggrieved with the impugned order dated 04.12.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No.68/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application filed by the applicants under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the respondent/husband to pay Rs. 9,000/- per month to the applicant No.2 and 3, however not allowed any maintenance in favour of applicant No.1/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant No. 1 married the respondent on 28.01.2012, and gave birth to two children. However, the respondent subjected her to cruelty, ousting them from his house twice, first in june 2013 and again on 05.02.2019, after physically abusing her. Despite having a permanent source of income, the respondent has not provided any financial support for the applicants’ maintenance, leading them to file a maintenance application. After serving notice, the respondent filed reply and denied the allegation and submitted that the applicant No.1 is living separately without there being and reasonable cause, therefore, she is not entitled to get any compensation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 04.12.2019 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent used to beat the applicant No.1 and ousted her from his house, therefore she is sufficient cause for the applicant No.1 to live separately. He further submits that the applicant No.1 being legally wedded wife of 3 respondent is entitled to get maintenance. He also submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is having 80 acres agriculture land, harvester and two tractors and residential land, therefore, the maintenance allowed in favour of applicant No.2 and 3 are low and deserves to be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order, pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, and from the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that the applicant No.1/wife failed to prove that she is living separately from the respondent/husband due to any reasonable reason, in such circumstances, the applicant No.1/wife is not entitled to received maintenance amount from her husband/respondent, however, applicant No.2 and applicant No.3/ are daughter and son of the respondent, in such circumstance, on the basis of legal and moral responsibility of the father, the respondent is responsible to maintain his children. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. 4 7. Considering the submission 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. 8. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let the certified of the this order as well as original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti