1 2025:CGHC:52704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1295 of 2025 1. Smt. Anita Gayakwad W/o Vijay Kumar Gayakwad Aged About 35 Years R/o Purani State Bank Road, Ram Nagar, Supela, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) 2. Shivesh Gayakwad S/o Vijay Kumar Gayakwad Aged About 13 Years Minor - Through - Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anita Gayakwad (Applicant No.1), R/o Purani State Bank Road, Ram Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Vijay Kumar Gayakwad S/o Geetaram Gayakwad Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 4/B, Sadak No. 16, H.S.C.L. Sector-7, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.10.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press the present revision petition when the case is called out for hearing today. 2. Heard Mr. Vivek Singhal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. 3. The present revision has been 昀椀led by the applicants with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.30 12:10:12 +0530 2 “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 11- 07-2025 (Annexure A-1) (so far as relating to the wife) and kindly be pleased to award maintenance to the applicant No.1 as prayed by her in the application under Section 125 of CRPC and also be pleased to enhance the amount of maintenance awarded to the applicant No.2 as prayed by him in the application under Section 125 of CRPC and also be pleaded to passed an order to grant maintenance from the date of 昀椀ling of the application under Section 125 of CRPC i.e. 02-08-2021, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was 昀椀led by the applicants, who are the wife and minor son of the respondent, claiming a total maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month (Rs. 15,000/- for the wife and Rs. 10,000/- for the son). It is pleaded in the application that the marriage between applicant No.1 (wife) and the respondent (husband) was solemnized on 27.02.2008 as per community customs and rituals. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two children — Master Shivesh Gayakwad (Applicant No.2), aged 17 years, and Kumari Priyal Gayakwad, aged 15 years — both residing with the wife. It is further alleged in the application that the husband has illicit relations with several women, and when the wife opposed such conduct, he physically assaulted her on several occasions. It is also alleged that the husband took money from various persons under the pretext of providing them employment. Furthermore, it is alleged that the husband doubted the character of the wife and, due to such suspicion, subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. The wife further stated in her 3 application that the husband is a Government employee serving in the Home/Tra昀케c Department and drawing a salary of Rs. 45,000/- per month. She also alleged that he owns agricultural land and earns an additional income of about Rs. 20,00,000/- per annum. On these grounds, she sought maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month for herself and her son. 5. The husband 昀椀led his reply denying all adverse allegations made against him and prayed for the dismissal of the application. He, in turn, made counter-allegations regarding the character of the wife and questioned her conduct, thereby seeking rejection of the maintenance claim. 6. Learned Family Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence available on record, and the arguments advanced by both parties, passed the impugned order dated 11.07.2025. By the said order, the learned Court rejected the claim of maintenance in respect of applicant No.1 (wife) and partly allowed the claim in favour of applicant No.2 (son), awarding maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of the order. The said amount is meagre and on the lower side, and granting maintenance only from the date of the order is illegal. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, passed without proper application of mind, and contrary to the object and spirit of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Family Court ought to have considered that, due to the ill-treatment and cruelty meted out by the husband, the wife was compelled to live separately. The wife is unable to maintain herself and her children, yet the husband has failed and neglected to provide maintenance to them. He also submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that applicant No.1 is the 4 legally wedded wife of the respondent and applicant No.2 is his son, therefore, the respondent is legally bound to maintain both his wife and son. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the husband is living separately from his wife and children and is willfully refusing to maintain them, thereby making the applicants legally entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Family Court ought to have considered that the wife is residing with two children, and even if she possesses one acre of agricultural land, the income therefrom is insu昀케cient for her and her children’s livelihood. Moreover, applicant No.1 is not gainfully employed. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the husband is employed in the Home Department and earns Rs. 59,473/- per month. Therefore, the maintenance amount claimed by the applicants is neither excessive nor unreasonable. The husband has no other dependents apart from the applicants and is 昀椀nancially capable of paying Rs. 25,000/- per month as maintenance. He also submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that applicant No.1 is unable to maintain herself, and the Court itself did not 昀椀nd any evidence to suggest that she is earning. Owing to the disputes between the parties, particularly concerning the husband’s alleged extramarital a昀昀airs, the applicants are compelled to live separately, while the husband is willfully refusing to maintain them. Learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicants had duly proved their case by producing documentary evidence and by giving their statements before the Court. He further submits that learned Family Court ought to have considered that the wife is legally entitled to receive maintenance from her husband, and considering the current cost of living and the social status of the parties, the amount claimed by the applicants is reasonable and justi昀椀ed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings 5 and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 昀椀led by the applicants. The Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 4000/- to the applicant No. 2. However, the application for grant of maintenance to applicant No. 1 was rejected by the Family Court. The Court considered the income, social, and economic status of both parties and the current price index, and the award cannot be said to be on the lower side. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 昀椀nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in昀椀rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (RameshSinha) Chief Justice Abhishek