1 2025:CGHC:34948 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 886 of 2025 1 - Smt. Poonam Jaiswal W/o- Fanendra Jaiswal, Aged About 30 Years R/o - Village Jirladih (Sendri) P.S. Nagarda Tahsil New Baradwar District Sakti C.G. 2 - Minor Chidanand Jaiswal S/o- Fanendra Jaiswal Aged About 10 Years Through His Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Poonam Jaiswal W/o- Fanendra Jaiswal, R/o - Village Jirladih (Sendri) P.S. Nagarda Tahsil New Baradwar District Sakti C.G. ... Applicants versus Fanendra Jaiswal S/o - Shankar Lal Jaiswal, Aged About 40 Years R/o- Village Sukli Tahsil Bilaigarh P.S. Bilaigarh District Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) Posted At Government Dental College Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) At Present R/o- Through Ramprasad Dinkar, Capital Home, Phase-Ii, Saddu, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Ms. Pooja Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Pooja Sinha, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed by learned Principle Judge link family court Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 45/2024 and grant the maintenance amount as prayed in the application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. by the applicants, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the non-applicant, her husband, stating that their marriage was solemnized on 01.04.2012 as per Hindu customs, and a son was born from the wedlock who currently resides with her. She alleged that soon after marriage, the non-applicant began demanding dowry and subjected her to physical abuse, including incidents in September 2013 and February 2015, following which she began living separately at her maternal home with her son. She also filed a domestic violence case under which she was granted ₹5,000 per month as maintenance. The non-applicant, a government lab technician earning ₹70,000 per month with additional income from 8 acres of agricultural land, denied the allegations and claimed the applicant was leading an adulterous life and had sufficient means of her own. After evaluating the pleadings and evidence, the learned Family Court, by order dated 17.06.2025, rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the applicant was capable of maintaining herself and was already receiving maintenance under 3 the Domestic Violence Act. Aggrieved by this decision, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of law applicable to the facts of the case. The court failed to appreciate that the applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife and applicant No.2 is the legitimate son of the non-applicant, thereby placing a legal obligation upon him to maintain them. Though the non- applicant was acquitted in the criminal case filed under Section 498-A IPC, the fact remains that cruelty was alleged, an FIR was lodged, and a charge sheet was filed, indicating the strained matrimonial relationship. The Family Court erred in relying on unsubstantiated allegations made by the non-applicant regarding the adulterous conduct of applicant No.1, which were not proven by any credible evidence. It also failed to consider the needs of the minor child, applicant No.2, who is entitled to maintenance irrespective of the dispute between his parents. The finding of the Family Court is perverse, lacking proper reasoning, and ignores the material and corroborative evidence on record. Furthermore, it overlooked the principle that the standard of living of the husband should be considered in awarding just and reasonable maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after carefully evaluating the pleadings and evidence presented by both parties, rightly rejected the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the applicant. The Court found that the applicant was already receiving ₹5,000 per month under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and held that she had not sufficiently demonstrated that she was unable to maintain herself. Furthermore, the Court took note of the non-applicant’s denial of the allegations and the absence of conclusive proof regarding the claims of cruelty and financial neglect. Given the overall circumstances, the Family Court’s conclusion that there was no justification for awarding additional maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is legally sound and supported by the facts on record. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan