1 2026:CGHC:7415 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1014 of 2024 1 - Sushma Jaisawal W/o Shri Dabbu Jaisawal Aged About 45 Years R/o C/o Mother Soma Jaisawal, House No. 464, Awanti Vihar Telibandha Raipur Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Revisioner) 2 - Ku. Valini Jaisawal D/o Shri Dabbu Jaiswal Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Mother Sushma Jaisawal, R/o C/o Mother Soma Jaisawal, House No. 464, Awanti Vihar Telibandha Raipur Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Revisioner) ... Applicant(s) versus Shri Dabbu Jaisawal S/o Late Ramlal Aged About 55 Years R/o Jaiswal Traders Sadar Road, In Front Of Rajesh Time Center Baloda Bazar District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Mahesh Mishra, Advocate For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 be pleased to - A. May this Hon'ble Court to call for the records in Criminal MCC No. 541/2023 from the learned Principle Judge, Family Court Raipur (CG) B. May this Hon'ble Court to allow the revision, set-a- side the impugned order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Principle Judge, Family Court Raipur (CG) in Criminal MCC No. 541/2023. C. May this Hon'ble Court to enhance the maintenance amount from 15000/- to 50,000/- per month in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant No. 1 and the non- applicant are legally wedded wife and husband. Their marriage was solemnized on 30.06.2001 at Awanti Vihar, Telibandha, District Raipur. After the marriage, the applicant No.1 resided with the non- applicant at the address mentioned in the cause title. Out of their wedlock, one son, namely Akhil Jaisawal, was born on 20.11.2002, and one daughter, namely Valini Jaisawal (applicant No. 2), was born on 11.04.2016. In the year 2021, the non-applicant, under the influence of alcohol, allegedly subjected the applicant No.1 to physical assault and used filthy and abusive language. Due to the cruelty and ill-treatment meted out by the non-applicant, the applicant No.1, along with her minor daughter, started residing with her aged mother. It is further alleged that the applicant has no independent source of income for her livelihood. Owing to the conduct of the non-applicant, the applicants filed an application 3 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month from the non-applicant, on the ground that the non-applicant has sufÏcient income and earns approximately Rs. 2,08,000/- per month from business and agricultural activities. At present, the applicants are residing at the parental home of applicant No. 1, though the non-applicant is financially capable of maintaining them. 3. Upon service of notice, the non-applicant entered appearance and filed a detailed reply before the Family Court, denying all the allegations made in the maintenance application. The non-applicant further contended that the aged mother of the applicant No.1 has sufÏcient income from pension. It was also stated that the applicant No.1 herself refused to live with the non-applicant and left the matrimonial home without any sufÏcient reason. The income of the non-applicant, as stated in the application, was denied and described as false and exaggerated. 4. After considering the maintenance application, the reply, and the material documents available on record, the learned Family Court arrived at the conclusion and partly allowed the application filed by the applicants, directing the non-applicant to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance in favour of the applicants. Hence, the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court committed a grave error in awarding an 4 inadequate amount of maintenance by directing payment of only Rs. 15,000/- per month, despite clear material on record showing that the non-applicant is engaged in business and earns approximately Rs. 2,08,000/- per month, and is fully capable of maintaining the applicants. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicants have no independent source of income and are dependent for their livelihood and for meeting the educational and daily needs of the minor daughter residing with applicant No. 1. The Court ought to have granted maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month considering the present cost of living and the financial status of the non-applicant. The refusal and neglect on the part of the non- applicant to maintain the applicants constitutes a valid cause of action. The object of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure social justice and provide protection to the weaker sections, which has not been properly considered by the learned Family Court while partly allowing the application in a mechanical manner, thereby resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs. 15000/-per month to the applicants from the 5 date of filing of application, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 8. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal