1 2026:CGHC:14399 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 398 of 2026 1 - Smt. Mithlesh Pansari W/o Tiku Ram Pansari Aged About 32 Years (Presently Aged About 36 Years) R/o C/o Ramsai Pansari, Village And Post Surpa, Police Station Ranitarai Tehsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Yugank S/o Tiku Ram Pansari Aged About 15 Years (Presently Aged About 19 Years) R/o C/o Ramsai Pansari, Village And Post Surpa, Police Station Ranitarai Tehsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Himanshi D/o Tiku Ram Pansari Aged About 13 Years (Presently Aged About 17 Years) Being A Minor Is Represented Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Mithlesh Pansari, W/o Tiku Ram Pansari, Aged About 32 Years (Presently Aged About 36 Years) R/o C/o Ramsai Pansari, Village And Post Surpa, Police Station Ranitarai Tehsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Tiku Ram Pansari S/o Ramsai Pansari Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post Surpa, Police Station Ranitarai Tehsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the impugned judgment dated 09.02.2026 passed by the Learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 968/2021. may kindly be set-aside.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicants, namely applicant No.1 (wife), applicant No.2 (son) and applicant No.3 (daughter), filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of maintenance against the respondent, stating that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 07.05.2006 as per Hindu rites and customs at Village Surpa, District Durg, and out of the said wedlock two children were born, who are residing with applicant No.1. It was averred that after some time of cordial matrimonial life, the respondent’s behaviour changed and he started neglecting the applicants and became involved with another woman, ultimately deserting them on 15.09.2013 without making any arrangement for their maintenance. Despite several efforts by family members and community elders for reconciliation, the respondent failed to resume cohabitation or maintain the applicants, who have no independent source of income, whereas the respondent is stated to be a motor mechanic and also engaged in running vehicles, earning sufÏcient income; accordingly, maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month was claimed. The respondent, in his reply, denied all allegations, contending that the applicant No.1 had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufÏcient cause and was residing separately of her own accord. Upon appreciation of evidence, the 3 learned Family Court, vide impugned judgment dated 09.02.2026 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 968/2021, dismissed the application mainly on the ground that applicant No.1 was residing separately without sufÏcient reason and that the applicants were being maintained by the respondent’s father, further observing that applicant No.2 had attained majority at the time of passing of the judgment, and therefore declined maintenance, hence the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has erred in law and on facts in holding that applicant No.1 is residing separately without sufÏcient cause, despite cogent evidence on record demonstrating that the respondent had neglected and refused to maintain the applicants. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment is in clear violation of the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh v. Neha, thereby resulting in denial of the statutory and legal rights of the applicants. It is contended that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that applicant No.2 and applicant No.3 were minors at the time of filing of the application under Section 125 CrPC and were legally entitled to maintenance from their father, and has further committed an error in placing reliance on the fact that the applicants are residing with the respondent’s father, as the legal obligation to maintain the wife and minor children lies solely upon the respondent and cannot be shifted to the father-in-law. It is also submitted that the learned Court has completely ignored the entitlement of applicant No.3, being a minor daughter, to claim 4 maintenance, and has failed to properly assess the earning capacity of the respondent while determining the claim. The impugned order is thus perverse, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC, as the learned Court has not appreciated the same in its true letter and spirit, and has also overlooked the settled principle that only statutory deductions are permissible while assessing the income of the respondent. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has duly appreciated the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties and has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment dated 09.02.2026. The finding that applicant No.1 is residing separately without sufÏcient cause is based on proper evaluation of the material available on record. The learned Family Court has also taken into consideration that the applicants are being maintained by the father of the respondent and has, therefore, rightly concluded that no case for grant of maintenance is made out. Further, it has rightly been observed that applicant No.2 had attained majority at the time of passing of the impugned judgment and, therefore, was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are reasoned, based on evidence. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan