1 2026:CGHC:5828 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1289 of 2024 Anand Jaiswal S/o Ram Kumar Jaiswal, Aged About 32 Years R/o Pahadi Mandir Colony, Police Station-Jharsuguda, P.O.-Jharsuguda, District-Jharsuguda (Odisha) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Ayushi Jaiswal W/o Anand Jaiswal, Aged About 25 Years R/o Bauripara, Ambikapur, P.O.-Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Minor Lado D/o Anand Jaiswal, Aged About 5 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No.1, R/o Bauripara, Ambikapur, P.O.- Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02 /02/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.10.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Court, Ambikapur District – Surguja (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.166/2022, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.7,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent–wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Ambikapur, seeking maintenance for herself and the minor daughter. The learned Family Court, vide impugned judgment dated 05.10.2024 in Criminal Case No. 166/2022, allowed the application and directed the applicant– husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- per month to the respondent no. 1 (wife) and Rs. 2,500/- per month to respondent no. 2 (daughter). Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision, contending that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record, ignored the applicant’s poor financial and mental condition, and passed the order without considering material facts and circumstances allegedly showing willful desertion, misconduct, and lack of financial capacity on the part of the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence, including the detailed cross-examination of the applicant and the respondent, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. 3 Material evidence placed on record through Annexures P-2 and P- 3 regarding the alleged adulterous conduct of the respondent no. 1, filing of false complaints, and the disturbed mental and financial condition of the applicant was ignored, leading to an erroneous judgment. He further submits that the impugned judgment suffers from non-application of mind and is based on mere assumptions and presumptions created in favour of respondent no. 1, without any cogent reasoning. The learned Court relied mechanically on conjectures regarding the applicant’s income, including an old photograph, while completely disregarding vital material evidence, thereby rendering the order perverse and unsustainable in the eyes of law. He also submits that the essential ingredients of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not fulfilled, as respondent no. 1 is an educated person earning her livelihood, is living separately without sufficient cause, and has willfully neglected the applicant. The learned Family Court acted with material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction by granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month without considering the applicant’s financial capacity and settled principles of law, warranting interference and setting aside of the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.7,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance, holding that the applicant is a person having sufficient means and is capable of earning, that respondent No. 1 has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself and the minor child, that the applicant has neglected and failed to maintain the respondents, and that respondent No. 1 has sufficient, just and reasonable cause to live separately from the applicant. The learned Family Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record and applying the settled principles of law, came to the conclusion that the statutory requirements of Section 125 Cr.P.C. stand satisfied and accordingly awarded maintenance along with litigation expenses in favour of the respondents. 7. Considering the submissions 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. 5 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil