1 2025:CGHC:43372 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 629 of 2019 Ashok Jain S/o Jasraj Jain Aged About 30 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Dewanganpara, Devkar, Tahsil - Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Anjali Jain W/o Ashok Jain Aged About 27 Years R/o Aditya Nagar Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Khwahish Jain D/o Ashok Jain, Aged About 2 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Anjali Jain W/o Ashok Jain, R/o Aditya Nagar Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to call the record and allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 16.04.2019, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 29.07.2013 according to RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hindu rites, and out of their wedlock, respondent No.2 was born who resides with respondent No.1. The case of respondent No.1 in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., filed on 10.03.2017, is that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the applicant and his family on account of dowry demand, and during her pregnancy she was sent to her parental house, where all medical expenses were borne by her parents, further, on 01.01.2017, she was deserted by the applicant. The applicant, in reply filed in June 2017, denied these allegations stating that he belongs to Jain society where dowry is prohibited, that he had borne the pregnancy expenses, but the behaviour of respondent No.1 was cruel and she left his house without sufficient reason, often threatening to implicate him and his family in false dowry cases. He also submitted that he has no permanent business, only sells pulses in the market, earns hardly Rs.3,000/- per month, and maintains his dependent parents. Upon framing of issues and appreciation of evidence, the learned Family Court by order dated 16.04.2019 directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 as maintenance. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order of the learned Family Court is bad both on facts and law, being based on conjectures and surmises. The Family Court failed to properly appreciate that the applicant earns a meagre income and is burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents and a handicapped sister, whose 3 medical expenses are to be borne by him from time to time. Despite this, the Court has awarded a total maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month (Rs.3,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.2), which is on the higher side considering the living standard of the parties at village Devkar, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.). It is further submitted that respondent No.1, being highly educated, left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause, and hence was not entitled to claim maintenance under law. Therefore, the impugned order is perverse, unlawful and liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after framing issues, recording evidence and appreciating the material on record, has rightly passed the order dated 16.04.2019 directing the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 as maintenance. The Court took into account the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, the fact that respondent No.1 was compelled to reside with her parents during pregnancy at their expense, and that she and the minor child were deserted by the applicant on 01.01.2017. The defence set up by the applicant regarding his limited income and allegations against respondent No.1 were not substantiated by cogent evidence, whereas the need of the wife and minor child for sustenance stood established. The impugned order is thus a well-reasoned one, in conformity with the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prevent destitution and ensure 4 maintenance to a deserted wife and minor child, and does not call for interference. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan