1 2026:CGHC:627 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1544 of 2025 Pravin Kumar Thakur S/o Shyam Singh Thakur Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 386, Ward No. 10, Dangal Chowk, Gram- Takari, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Vijeta Singh Thakur W/o Shri Pravin Kumar Thakur Aged About 30 Years R/o Shyam Bazar, Ward No. 08, Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Yasshvi Singh Thakur D/o Shri Pravin Kumar Thakur Aged About 2 Years R/o Shyam Bazar, Ward No. 08, Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 197/2021, whereby the learned Family Court concerned partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the revisionist and the respondents No. husband and wife who got married on dated 15.12.2018 by Hindu rituals at Arang Distt- Raipur (CG). They also have a daughter respondent No. 2 out of the said wedlock who is presently residing with respondent no 1. The revisionist and the respondent no 1 are living 1 has separately since 27.02.2020 as respondent No. deserted the revisionist home on her own wish. Despite revisionist's repeated attempts and requests, the respondent No. 1 has not return back to her matrimonial home and she is presently residing in her paternal house at Arang, Distt-Raipur (C.G.). The revisionist and respondent No. 1 were happily married and leading normal married life but due to interference of the respondent No. 1's mother and sisters differences started cropping up between revisionist and respondent no 1. Their married life started getting sore as espondent No.1 started making allegations of dowry, using busive, rude and insulting language, assault on the revisionist many times. 4. The respondent No. 1 even made complaint to Thana Arang against the revisionist and his family members but as the police didn't find any criminal incident so the police has not registered any FIR against the revisionist and his family members and closed the complaint U/s 155 Cr.P.C. The allegation made by the respondent No. I that even revisionist mother and his Brother-in-law used to abuse her regularly is absolutely false and malicious. The revisionist made several attempts to bring back the respondent to her matrimonial home but due to adamant attitude of the respondent No.1 the all attempt of the revisionist could not be fructified. The allegation made by respondent 3 No. 1 that on 27.02.2020 her mother was told to come to revisionist house in Takari and the respondent No. 1 was assaulted by the revisionist in front of her mother only is totally false. Also the respondent No. 1 made allegation that she was forcefully sent back to her father's home along with her mother and was told to never return back is totally false and malicious which have no substance. The respondents filed an application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. on 16.03.2021 seeking maintenance from the revisionist. The revisionist in his reply denied all the allegations made by the respondent and expressed his bonafide desire to bring back the respondents in his house. The case of maintenance was once taken up in Lok Adalat but their also the matter could not be settled amicably due to adamant and non-cooperative attitude of the respondent no 1. 5. The though the respondents filed the application for maintenance on 16.03.2021, the notice to the revisionist was issued after a year as the respondents failed to pay the process fee timely for issuing the notice of the application to the revisionist. The fact made out by the respondent No. 1 that the revisionist is a executive in multinational company and earning Rs 50000/- monthly and also earning extra income of Rs 10000/- from family +farming activity, have no substance and is totally false. The learned court passed the interim order dated 06/12/2023 directing the revisionist to pay interim relief of Rs 5000/- to respondent No. 1 and Rs 2000/- to respondent No. 2. On the date of interim order i.e. 06.12.2023, the respondent was working as a staff nurse and earning a monthly salary of Rs. 16,5000/- per month. But this fact was deliberately suppressed by the respondent and thus 4 obtained the interim maintenance order by playing fraud with the learned court. The revisionist got the information that the respondent No. 1 is working as Nursing Officer in a Government Community Health Centre. The revisionist obtained document from the office of Chief Medical of Health Officer, Raipur regarding employment status of the respondent No.1. The RTI document i.e. the appointment order dated 25.11.2022 reveals that the respondent No. 1 is appointed as Nursing Officer on the contractual basis in Government Community Health Centre, Birgaon, Raipur (CG) at the monthly salary of 16,500/-. 6. The respondent No.1, in her affidavit dated 16.03.2021, stated her and her daughter's monthly expenditure of Rs. 16,000/-. In cross- examination as well as in the Final Order also, it has come on record that she is employed as a Staff Nurse earning Rs. 17,300/- per month. Thus, the respondent No. is earning sufficiently to maintain herself and her daughter with her own income. Beside her income the respondent also owned agriculture land which she deliberately suppressed in her affidavit filed before the learned Family Court as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha case. Notwithstanding her admitted professional qualification as a Nurse, Respondent No.1 has suppressed material facts regarding her earning and her property interests. The learned Family Court has not properly considered the said suppressed facts. The Revisionist is barely making his living by giving tuition classes. He has only a small share in agricultural income. 7. The Revisionist had clearly stated that his total monthly expenditure is Rs. 12,000/-, his monthly income from tuition is Rs. 3,000/-, and his 5 annual agricultural income is Rs. 1,20,000/- (equivalent to Rs. 10,000/- per month). However, the learned Family Court, though, admitted and considered these facts but granted maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) per month by passing the impugned order. Which is against the established law regarding grant of maintenance. The respondent No. 1 is also a co-owner in an agricultural land bearing survey number 197 in gram Pipradha, Tehsil Arang, Distt-Raipur (C.G.). In Affidavit the respondent no 1 suppressed this fact that she is a land owner. The revisionist recently came to know about this fact through online revenue record maintained by the revenue department in form P-II, therefore, could not bring this fact before learned family court, but the respondent No. 1 has intentionally suppressed this fact and made false statement in her affidavit dated 16.03.2021. 8. The respondent No. I had also suppressed the fact that she had claimed interim maintenance in another proceeding under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In that proceeding also, the learned Court has granted interim maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month to the respondent No.1 by its order dated 12.12.2023. The learned Family Court reached on the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 is earning 17,300/- per month as staff nurse after perusal of the records and deposition of the respondent No. 1 and therefore, rightly rejected the claim of maintenance to the respondent No. 1. But the learned Family Court not neither taken any decision on the application moved by the revisionist under Section nor directed respondent No. 1 to refund the maintenance amount received from the revisionist by supressing her regular income. The learned Family Court 6 in the impugned order also considered this fact that the actual income of the revisionist is only Rs. 13,000/- (Thirteen Thousand) per month but granted 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) per month maintenance to the respondent No. 2 without assigning any reason for the same. Hence, this application. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order impugned passed by the learned Family Court is against the law and facts. It is submitted that the learned Family Court committed a grave error of law and fact by awarding an exrobitant maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the minor daughter, thereby disregarding the applicant’s actual financial capacity. The applicant’s uncontroverte affidavt established his total monthly income at approximately Rs. 13,000/-. By directing the payment of Rs. 10,000/- per month, the impugned order effectively confiscates nearly 77% of the applicant’s total earnings, leaving him with a meagre sum of Rs. 3,000/- which is wholly insufficient to meet his stated monthly expenditure of Rs. 12,000/- and to maintain his dependent aged parents. Thus, the impugned order is liable to set-aside. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no 7 any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar