1 2026:CGHC:2795 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1295 of 2023 Smt. Pratiksha Jain D/o Late Kishore Kumar Jain Aged About 24 Years R/o C/o Smt. Pratibha Jain, I-106, Golden Sky, Vip Road, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Amil Kumar Jain S/o Sunil Kumar Jain Aged About 27 Years R/o Street No. 1, L-1, Infront Of Taiyyaba Masjid, Pushpkunj, Bhartya Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. D.D Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. Though the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present revision petition has been filed against the order of interim maintenance, it is apparent on the face of the record that such submission is factually incorrect, inasmuch as a final order of maintenance has already been passed by the competent Court. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to enhance the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 maintenance from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- p.m. by modifying the impugned order in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant–wife and the non-applicant–husband was solemnized on 28.02.2021 at Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. The applicant alleged that prior to marriage, demands of dowry were made, pursuant to which certain amounts were paid, and that soon after marriage she was subjected to continuous cruelty, physical and mental harassment, forced unnatural sexual acts, threats, and inhuman treatment by the non- applicant, with the active support of his parents. It was further alleged that due to such cruelty, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and subsequently lodged complaints before the Women Police Station, resulting in registration of offences under Sections 498-A, 377, and 406 IPC, supported by medical evidence indicating suspected unnatural intercourse. The applicant asserted that she is unemployed, wholly dependent upon her widowed mother, whereas the non-applicant is a businessman earning substantial income from his establishments, and accordingly sought maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month under Section 125 CrPC. The non-applicant denied all allegations, disputed the dowry demand and acts of cruelty, alleged that the applicant left the matrimonial home of her own accord, claimed that she is financially independent, and asserted that he has no substantial income. Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence, medical records, rival 3 contentions, and the absence of reliable proof regarding the exact income of the non-applicant, the learned Family Court, after assessing the social and economic status of the parties and applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, partly allowed the application and held that awarding maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the applicant from the date of application. Hence, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed in disregard of the settled principles of law and the material facts on record and is therefore illegal and liable to be modified by enhancement of the maintenance amount. It is contended that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the afÏdavit of assets and liabilities filed by the non-applicant was vague, misleading, and suffered from deliberate suppression of material facts, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and no adverse inference was drawn despite such false disclosure. The learned Court further erred in ignoring the existence of the non-applicant’s GST registrations, business activities, returns, bank transactions, and admitted facts regarding separation and subsequent surrender of GST registration, which clearly indicate concealment of income and assets. It is argued that the non-applicant has played fraud upon the Court by filing a false afÏdavit, suppressing pending liabilities and proceedings, despite a clear declaration attracting penal consequences, yet no action or adverse inference was taken. The learned Court also failed to 4 properly consider the documentary evidence produced by the applicant, the non-appearance and repeated defaults of the non- applicant, and his own admissions in other judicial proceedings regarding his business status and income. It is further submitted that the applicant cannot be burdened with strict proof of the respondent’s income when such information was deliberately withheld and access under RTI was denied, warranting an adverse inference. In view of the suppression, falsehood, non-compliance, and overall conduct of the non-applicant, it is urged that the maintenance awarded at par with interim maintenance is grossly inadequate and the impugned order deserves to be modified by enhancing the maintenance to a just and reasonable amount. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, medical records, and the rival submissions of the parties, has rightly appreciated the material on record and correctly applied the settled principles of law. The Court found that the marriage between the parties was duly solemnized and that the applicant had made specific allegations of cruelty and desertion, entitling her to claim maintenance, however, at the same time, it was also correctly observed that the applicant failed to produce cogent and reliable documentary evidence to conclusively establish the exact income as alleged against the non-applicant. 5 Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the social and economic status of the parties, the material available on record, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, the learned Family Court exercised sound judicial discretion in partly allowing the application and awarding a reasonable sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of application. The findings recorded are based on proper appreciation of evidence, are neither perverse nor arbitrary, and the impugned order reflects a just, fair, and balanced approach. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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