1 2025:CGHC:34954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 42 of 2018 1 - Smt. Reena Jaiswal W/o Suresh Jaiswal, Aged About 21 Years R/o Hariprasad Dingsena, Madan Mohalla, Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Kaya Jaiswal, D/o Suresh Kumar Jaiswal, Aged About 1 Years Through Legal Mother Namely Reena Jaiswal, W/o Suresh Kumar Jaiswal, R/o Hariprasad, Dingsen Madan Mohalla, Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Suresh Jaiswal Son Of Sitaram Jaiswal, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Khamhariya, Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Sumit Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sumit Verma, 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 may kindly be pleased to allow this revision RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 and be pleased to set-aside the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by learned First Additional Chief Judge, Family Court Bilaspur (C.G.), in M.J.C. 04/2016 and directed the non- applicant to pay the maintenance amount in favour of the applicant no. 1 (as she prays in her application) and also enhanced the maintenance amount granted in favour of the applicant no. 2, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant-wife was married to the non- applicant on 20.06.2014 at Satsangh Bhawan, Pali, District Korba (C.G.) as per Hindu rites and customs, and a daughter, Ku. Kaya Jaiswal, was born from the wedlock. The applicant alleged that shortly after marriage, the non-applicant began consuming alcohol and, along with his family members, subjected her to mental and physical cruelty over dowry demands, including a demand for ₹1,00,000 and a gold chain. She further alleged that an attempt was made to kill her by pouring kerosene, following which she took shelter at her parental home. Despite efforts by her family to resolve the dispute through family and social meetings, the non-applicant failed to cooperate and continued the harassment. Consequently, the applicant left the matrimonial home on 07.05.2015 along with her infant daughter and has since been residing with her parents. On 14.03.2016, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Bilaspur, seeking ₹30,000 per month as maintenance for herself and her daughter. After hearing both sides 3 and recording evidence, the Family Court, by order dated 28.11.2017, held that the applicant-wife failed to prove her entitlement to maintenance and accordingly dismissed her claim, granting only ₹3,000 per month as maintenance for the minor daughter. Aggrieved by this, the present revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, is bad in law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The court erred in rejecting the wife’s claim for maintenance without properly verifying the income of the non-applicant-husband, despite clear and undisputed evidence that the applicant is legally wedded to the non-applicant and that, being a husband, he cannot be exonerated from his statutory obligation under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned court failed to consider the evidence on record, including the fact that the non-applicant has a regular source of income through his auto parts business at Main Road, Pali, and also earns from other sources. Additionally, the Family Court overlooked the fact that the non-applicant had previously agreed to take the applicant back, which contradicts the finding that she is residing at her parental home without any sufficient reason. The court also ignored its earlier interim order dated 04.07.2016, granting ₹1,000 per month as maintenance to the applicant-wife, thereby acknowledging her need for financial support. Moreover, it failed to appreciate that the applicant-wife is unemployed and entirely dependent on others for her survival, and that the amount of ₹3,000 per month awarded to the minor daughter (Applicant No. 2) is insufficient considering 4 current living costs. Thus, the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after thoroughly considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, rightly concluded that the applicant-wife was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as she failed to establish sufficient grounds warranting such relief. The Court carefully evaluated the circumstances, including her voluntary departure from the matrimonial home without adequate justification, and noted the inconsistencies in her statements. Moreover, the Court took a balanced view by recognizing the needs of the minor daughter born from the wedlock and accordingly awarded ₹3,000 per month towards her maintenance. This decision reflects a judicious appreciation of facts, legal principles, and the responsibilities of the father towards his child, while also ensuring that the provision of maintenance is not misused in the absence of genuine need. Therefore, the order dated 28.11.2017 is just, fair, and in accordance with law. 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 5 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 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