1 2026:CGHC:5575 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 302 of 2024 Santosh Kumar Rathore S/o Late Shri Gokul Prasad Rathore Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Gataura, Post And Tahsil - Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.), Present R/o Mishra Bada, Ward No. 8, Lane Opposite Pinaki Hospital, Old Gaurela, Post, P.S. And Tahsil - Gaurela, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Manorama Rathore W/o Santosh Kumar Rathore Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Masturi, Tahsil And P.S. - Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 - Bhavik Rathore S/o Santosh Kumar Rathore Aged About 14 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Manorama Rathore, W/o Santosh Kumar Rathore, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Masturi, Tahsil And P.S. - Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Cheshta Rathore D/o Santosh Kumar Rathore Aged About 12 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Manorama Rathore, W/o Santosh Kumar Rathore, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Masturi, Tahsil And P.S. - Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bharadwaj, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Suresh Tandan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 09/02/2024 may kindly be set aside and the revision may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No.1, Smt. Manorama Rathore, is the wife of the Applicant, Santosh Kumar Rathore, and respondent Nos.2 and 3, namely Bhavik Rathore and Cheshta Rathore, are their minor children, presently residing with respondent No.1 separately from the applicant. The marriage between respondent No.1 and the applicant was solemnized on 01.05.1993 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Earlier, due to matrimonial dispute, an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month by order dated 03.06.2002; however, the parties amicably settled the dispute on 19.07.2003 and thereafter resumed cohabitation. Subsequently, respondent No.1 alleged that the applicant again subjected her to cruelty and neglect and, in the year 2019, upon her illness and diagnosis of uterine prolapse, she was sent to Masturi, where she has been residing since. Respondent No.1 claimed that she has no independent source of income, that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are school-going children, and that the applicant is a government teacher earning about Rs.90,000/- per month and owning ancestral agricultural land, and accordingly sought maintenance. The 3 applicant denied the allegations, contending that respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home without just cause, is gainfully employed at the Tahsil OfÏce, Masturi, and has sufÏcient income, while the applicant has a fixed salary with substantial financial liabilities and has always been willing to keep and maintain the respondents. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence of both parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 09.02.2024, held the respondents entitled to maintenance and directed the applicant to pay a total sum of Rs.21,000/- per month towards maintenance. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 09.02.2024, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts on record and settled principles of law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It is contended that the respondent is residing separately along with the children without any justifiable reason or sufÏcient cause, which vital aspect has not been duly considered by the learned Family Court. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, particularly with regard to assessment of income, liabilities and financial capacity of the parties. The allegations made in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are vague, ambiguous and lacking specific particulars, and hence do not confer any legal entitlement to maintenance. The applicant has consistently expressed his willingness to keep and 4 maintain the respondent (wife), but she has willfully and adamantly refused to reside with him without lawful justification, disentitling her from claiming maintenance as per settled law. It is also submitted that the applicant has a fixed salary with fixed and substantial financial liabilities, which were ignored by the learned Family Court, causing grave financial hardship to the applicant. The respondent No.1 is an educated lady and is gainfully employed at the Tahsil OfÏce, Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.), and thus is capable of maintaining herself, yet this material fact has been overlooked. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the material available on record and erroneously granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.21,000/- per month, including interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to the wife, which is arbitrary, excessive and unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed only with the intent to harass the applicant and his family members, and therefore, the impugned order, being unjust and perverse, deserves to be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due appreciation of the pleadings, afÏdavits and evidence brought on record by both the parties, has rightly passed the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 granting maintenance in favour of the respondents. The learned Family Court has correctly taken into consideration the admitted marital relationship between the parties, the fact that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are minor school-going children residing with respondent No.1, and the material placed on record regarding the income, status and earning capacity of the Applicant, who is a government teacher having a stable monthly income and agricultural property. The learned Family Court has also duly considered the inability of respondent No.1 to maintain herself and the minor children and the legal obligation of the applicant to provide maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. After proper evaluation of the financial capacity of the applicant and the needs of the respondents, the learned Family Court has passed a reasoned, just and lawful order directing payment of a total sum of Rs.21,000/- per month as maintenance, which neither suffers from any illegality nor perversity. 7. Considering the submission 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. 6 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 as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan