1 2025:CGHC:52203 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1281 of 2025 Vinay Kumar Rajwade S/o Shri Johan Ram Rajwade Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Harrapara, P.S. Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Bageshwari Rajwade W/o Shri Vinay Kumar Rajwade Aged About 31 Years D/o Shri Bihari Lal Rajwade R/o Village Bardiya P.S, Patna District- Koriya (C.G.) 2. Ku. Kanika Rajwade (Minor) D/o Vinay Kumar Rajwade Through Her Legal Guardian Smt. Bageshwari Rajwad, Aged About 3 Years, R/o Village Bardiya P.S. Patna, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ravitosh Kali, Advocate.. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.10.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to press this present revision petition when the matter is called out for hearing today. 2. Heard Mr. Ravitosh Kali, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been 9led by the applicant with the following prayer: “1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.28 15:37:11 +0530 2 month awarded to the minor child Ku. Kanika Rajwade by order dated 29.08.2025 passed in Criminal M.C.C. No. 69/2024 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh Camp Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.), to a reasonable amount commensurate with the applicant's actual 5nancial capacity. 2. Any other order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem 5t and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized in the year 2012 as per Hindu rites and customs prevalent in their community. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter, namely Ku. Kanika Rajwade (respondent No. 2), was born, who is presently residing with respondent No. 1. After the marriage, respondent No. 1 started residing with the applicant in his joint family house at Village Harrapara, P.S. Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). The applicant and his family members always treated respondent No. 1 with respect and provided her with every comfort expected in a matrimonial home. From the year 2017, the behaviour of respondent No. 1 towards the applicant changed drastically. She became indi?erent and quarrelsome, refused to discharge her matrimonial obligations, and repeatedly neglected the applicant and his family members. Despite all sincere e?orts made by the applicant, the cordial marital relationship could not be restored. On 18.05.2023, during the applicant’s absence from home, respondent No. 1 was found in a compromising situation with one Shri Surendra Rajwade, a relative residing in the same household. The said incident was witnessed by the applicant’s family members, following which the father and brother of respondent No. 1 came late at 3 night and took her along with the minor child to her parental house at Village Bardiya, where she continues to reside voluntarily. 5. The respondent No. 1 thereafter 9led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and the minor child, falsely alleging that the applicant is the owner of a nursing home and earns Rs. 70,000/- per month, besides agricultural income. The Applicant has denied all such false allegations and has 9led his aCdavit on record, stating that he is unemployed, less educated, and 9nancially dependent upon his parents. 6. Learned Family Court, vide order dated 29.08.2025 in Criminal M.C.C. No. 69/2024, rightly held that respondent No. 1 is not entitled to any maintenance as she is residing separately without suCcient cause. However, the learned Court erred in awarding an excessive sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance for the minor child, without any proof of the applicant’s earning capacity or 9nancial resources. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the applicant’s 9nancial incapacity and has mechanically 9xed Rs. 10,000/- per month towards child maintenance without any proof of his actual income. He submits that the impugned order is based on conjectures and assumptions rather than concrete evidence, whereas the Court is duty-bound to determine maintenance on the basis of the material and evidence available on record, and not on mere presumptions. He submits that the determination of maintenance cannot be made in abstraction or on moral considerations alone, but must be founded upon a reasoned evaluation of the parties’ 9nancial condition, social background, and standard of living as revealed by the evidence on record. The learned Family Court erred in 9xing Rs. 10,000/- 4 per month for the minor child without establishing the applicant’s source of income or demonstrating that such an amount bears a reasonable correlation to his proven means. Such an assessment, unaccompanied by proper analysis, amounts to a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant, despite his limited means, has consistently shown willingness to take responsibility for the minor child and provide for her within his 9nancial capacity. Learned Family Court overlooked relevant circumstances brought on record, particularly the applicant’s unemployment, dependence on his parents, and consistent willingness to maintain his daughter within his modest means. These facts, though undisputed, were not reFected in the conclusions drawn. The impugned order, therefore, su?ers from non-application of judicial mind and warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court to rationalize the maintenance amount in accordance with the applicant’s true 9nancial position. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent No.2 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek