1 2025:CGHC:28170 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1150 of 2019 Rajeshwar Jain S/o Bihauram Jain Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Lakhanpuri (Gadiyapara) P. S. Tahsil Charama District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh Present Address 38th Battalion Kharora Under Raipur Ambagarh Chowki Camp P. S. and Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Munika Jain And Another W/o Rajeshwar Jain Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Dhekuna, P. S. And Tahsil Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 2 - Miss Pallavi Jain D/o Rajeshwar Jain Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Munika Jain (Mother), R/o Village Dhekuna, P. S. And Tahsil Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 (Annexure-R/1), passed by Judge Family Court Kanker District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), in M.J.C. No. 72/2018, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife, and Respondent No.2 is the daughter of the revisionist. It was alleged that the revisionist neglected and deserted them without any just cause and subjected Respondent No.1 to cruelty. The revisionist contested the claim before the Family Court, stating that Respondent No.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home due to dislike towards his parents and widowed sister-in-law, and further claimed that she was capable of maintaining herself. He also submitted that he had to support his dependent family members and was financially incapable of paying maintenance. After hearing both parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Family Court, by order dated 14.08.2019, directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to Respondent No.1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to Respondent No.2, totaling Rs. 11,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 (Annexure R-1) passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and liable to be set aside, as it is not a well-reasoned or speaking order. The court has relied solely 3 on the pleadings of the respondents while ignoring the submissions and evidence presented by the revisioner. The revisioner had expressed willingness to take Respondent No.1 back to the matrimonial home, but she repeatedly refused, even during counseling sessions, clearly showing her unwillingness to live with him, which disentitles her to maintenance. Furthermore, the quantum of maintenance awarded is on the higher side, considering the revisioner’s monthly salary is Rs. 28,000/-, out of which Rs. 12,500/- goes towards a home loan, and the remaining amount is used to support his aged parents and the family of his deceased brother. The Family Court failed to properly assess the income and financial obligations of the revisioner before awarding maintenance, making the impugned order unjust and excessive in the given circumstances. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order passed by the learned Family Court on 14.08.2019 appears to be just, fair, and in accordance with law. Upon due consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances of the case, the Family Court rightly concluded that Respondent No.1, being the legally 4 wedded wife, and Respondent No.2, being the daughter of the revisionist, were entitled to maintenance after being neglected and deserted without sufficient cause. The revisionist failed to establish any cogent reason to absolve himself of his legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife and child. The Court also took into account the financial condition of the parties and awarded maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- to the wife and Rs. 4,000/- to the daughter, which cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. 8. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan