1 2025:CGHC:55327 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1373 of 2025 1 - Shashikala Tiwari W/o Rameshwar Tiwari Aged About 26 Years Caste - Bramhan, R/o Khisora, Tahsil - Navagarh, District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2 - Supriya Tiwari D/o Rameshwar Tiwari Aged About 3 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Shashikala Tiwari W/o Rameshwar Tiwari, Caste - Bramhan, R/o Khisora, Tahsil - Navagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Rameshwar Tiwari S/o Satyanarayan Tiwari Aged About 32 Years Caste - Bramhan, R/o Village - Khapri, Post - Pakariya (Jhulan), Tahsil - Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.11.2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.13 17:32:36 +0530 2 Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.300/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,500/- to the applicant No.2 only and rejected the claim of applicant No.1. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the non-applicant was solemnized on 26.04.2021 as per the customary rites and rituals, and from the said wedlock applicant No.2 was born on 31.01.2022. As per the case of the applicants, after marriage, applicant No.1 initially resided with the non-applicant in good condition, however, subsequently, the behaviour of the non- applicant and his family members changed, and they started subjecting her to cruelty by withholding food and making unlawful demands for a motorcycle and additional dowry. It is further submitted that at the time of marriage, the father of applicant No.1 had already paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards purchasing marriage-related goods. Thereafter, when applicant No.1 became pregnant, on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, the non-applicant left her at her parental home situated at village Khisora, where applicant No.2 was subsequently born. It is also alleged that the non-applicant was maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman and desired to marry her. Applicant No.1, being a housewife without any independent source of income, alleged that the non-applicant completely neglected her and their minor child 3 and failed to provide maintenance or financial assistance for their sustenance. The non-applicant, who is stated to be engaged in the business of DJ earning about Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum and owning 4-5 acres of agricultural land along with a tractor, is alleged to have sufficient means to maintain the applicants; hence, a claim of Rs. 15,000/- per month was made towards maintenance. 3. The non-applicant appeared before the Family Court and filed his written reply denying all the allegations except the admitted facts of marriage and parentage of the child. He contended that at the time of marriage, since the parents of applicant No.1 were unable to bear the expenses, his family members had given Rs. 2,00,000/-, gold and silver ornaments, and other articles to applicant No.1. He further alleged that soon after marriage, applicant No.1 complained of stomach pain, and on his suggestion for medical treatment, she insisted on consulting her family doctor and went to her parental home, where she allegedly misbehaved and assaulted him. It was stated that despite his efforts to bring her back on multiple occasions, including a social meeting held in September 2021, applicant No.1 refused to resume cohabitation. The non-applicant further alleged that applicant No.1 and her family members concealed the birth of applicant No.2 until 2023 and that applicant No.1 herself earns around Rs. 10,000/- per month through weaving work, while her father possesses agricultural land generating an annual income of 4 Rs. 2,00,000/-. After considering the pleadings, evidence, and arguments of both parties, the learned Family Court denied maintenance to applicant No.1 and granted maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to applicant No.2 only. Hence, the present revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is partly bad both on facts and in law and deserves to be set aside, as the findings are based merely on conjecture and surmises without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to assess the actual income of the non-applicant, who is engaged in the business of DJ services and also earns from agricultural sources, having an annual income exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is further submitted that applicant No.1 has always expressed her willingness to reside with the non- applicant and the same was recorded during conciliation proceedings and admitted by the non-applicant in his cross- examination. The non-applicant has not lodged any complaint regarding the alleged incidents of beating or tearing of clothes or against the alleged accusation of witchcraft made against his mother. Even his witness (NAW-2) admitted that applicant No.1 never made such allegations in his presence and that the alleged recording referred to by the non-applicant was never produced before the Family Court. It is further urged that, as per the compromise arrived at in the divorce proceedings, the non- 5 applicant never made any effort to bring back the applicants, and the report lodged by him was filed only after receiving notice in the present maintenance proceedings, thereby showing mala fide intention. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Family Court held that applicant No.2, being the child born from the lawful wedlock between the parties, is entitled to maintenance as the non-applicant failed to make any provision for her upkeep. While assessing the financial and social status of both sides, the Court observed that although the non-applicant claimed to have no income, he is a healthy 32-year-old capable of earning, and hence directed him to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to applicant No.2. However, the claim of applicant No.1 for maintenance was rejected on the ground that she voluntarily left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause and failed to prove that she was subjected to cruelty or neglect by the non-applicant. Consequently, the Family Court partly allowed the application for applicant No.2 and dismissed it for applicant No.1. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent 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 6 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Manpreet