1 2026:CGHC:359 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 199 of 2023 Shri Vicky Chejwani S/o Shri Chandra Kumar Chejwani Aged About 35 Years R/o Pragati Vihar, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1. Smt. Pooja Chejwani W/o Vicky Chejwani Aged About 29 Years R/o C/3, Mahaveer Nagar, Suvidha Vihar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Shubh Chejwani (Minor) S/o Vicky Chejwani, Aged About 2 Months And 15 Days Through Legal Guardian Mother Pooja Chejwani, R/o C/3, Mahaveer Nagar, Suvidha Vihar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate holding brief of Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.01.2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in M.C.C. No. 357/2021, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.01.06 11:06:34 +0530 2 respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and non-applicant No.1 were acquainted with each other for more than 07-08 years, during which they developed a love relationship and ultimately solemnized their marriage on 11-12-2020 at Hotel Arena Boutique, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.), in the presence of both families and in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. From the said wedlock, one child, i.e., non-applicant No.2, was born. After marriage, the parties resided together at the applicant’s house along with his family members, however, soon thereafter, non-applicant No.1 started quarrelling with the applicant and his family members on the ground of alleged differences in lifestyle and living habits and persistently insisted on living separately, despite repeated efforts made by the applicant to reconcile and continue the matrimonial life jointly. It is stated that non-applicant No.1 first went to her parental house on 14-12-2020 as per customary rituals and returned on 20-12-2020, but again left the matrimonial house on 24-12-2020 due to persistent disputes. Although she returned on 30-12-2020 at the request of the applicant, her conduct allegedly remained unchanged, and she continued to raise disputes over trivial issues and pressurize the applicant to demand his share in parental property. In order to avoid discord, the applicant even separated his residence from his parents. However, non-applicant No.1 again left the applicant’s house on 27-01- 2021 and allegedly threatened to falsely implicate the applicant and his family members in criminal cases, pursuant to which a written complaint was submitted to the police, though no action was taken considering it to be a matrimonial dispute. Despite repeated attempts, the applicant failed to bring back non-applicant No.1, who started residing separately along 3 with the child, compelling the applicant to file an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the Learned Family Court, Raipur, registered as Case No.953/2022, which is pending consideration. Thereafter, upon receiving notice of the said proceedings, non-applicant No.1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging assault and harassment, which was denied by the applicant in his reply, asserting his readiness and willingness to maintain and cohabit with the non-applicants. After afÏdavits were filed and statements of the parties were recorded, the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, allowed the application of non- applicant No.1 and awarded maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to non-applicant No.2, which order is assailed in the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed patent illegality and material irregularity in allowing the application for maintenance without proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, as the applicant has consistently expressed his readiness and willingness to keep and maintain non-applicant No.1, whereas she has willfully refused to cohabit without any just or sufÏcient cause, as evident from her own cross-examination, particularly paragraphs 19 and 25; the Learned Family Court further erred in ignoring the material suppression of facts by non-applicant No.1 regarding her savings bank account with Bank of India, amounting to concealment of income and assets in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (Cr.A. No. 730/2020), and failed to appreciate that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed only as a counterblast to the applicant’s bona fide application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which clearly demonstrates his intention to 4 continue the matrimonial relationship. The impugned order is further vitiated by the erroneous presumption that the applicant is gainfully employed and earning sufÏcient income without any cogent evidence, by wrongly concluding that non-applicant No.1 is unable to maintain herself despite being well educated and capable of earning, and by overlooking the applicant’s statutory and moral obligation to maintain his aged parents, and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Learned Family Court has categorically held that the allegation of the non- applicant/husband disputing the paternity of applicant No.2 is wholly unsubstantiated, as no evidence was led to prove that the child conceived prior to marriage was from someone else or that applicant No.2 is not born out of the lawful wedlock between the parties rather, it stands proved that applicant No.2, Shubh Chijwani, is the legitimate child born from the marital relationship. The Court further found that the non- applicant failed to establish that the applicants were residing separately out of their own free will, thereby justifying their claim for maintenance. Upon appreciation of afÏdavits filed in compliance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, and considering the educational qualifications, income assertions, properties, loans, and overall financial capacity of the non-applicant, the Court concluded that 5 he is a person of means and capable of earning sufÏcient income. Accordingly, holding that maintenance of the wife and minor child is the statutory responsibility of the non-applicant/applicant herein, the Learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.2, along with litigation expenses, which findings are based on due deliberation, proper appreciation of evidence, and settled principles of law. 7. Considering the submissions 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek