1 2026:CGHC:5548 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 609 of 2024 Pradeep Jeswani S/o Ramesh Jeswani Aged About 44 Years Occupation - Business, R/o 591-E, Byeramji Town, Nagpur, Presently R/o 1302, Kukreja Embassy, Nagpur, Maharashtra, 440013 ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Jyoti Jeswani W/o Pradeep Jeswani Aged About 40 Years R/o, C/o Shri Dayal Rajpal, Janki Niwas, Behind Dr. Memon Hospital, D/274, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur - 492001 (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Sonia Jeswani D/o Pradeep Jeswani Aged About 17 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jyoti Jeswani, R/o, C/o Shri Dayal Rajpal, Janki Niwas, Behind Dr. Memon Hospital, D/274, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur - 492001 (C.G.) 3 - Mas. Raunak Jeswani S/o Pradeep Jeswani Aged About 15 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jyoti Jeswani, R/o, C/o Shri Dayal Rajpal, Janki Niwas, Behind Dr. Memon Hospital, D/274, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur - 492001 (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Order on Board 31 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.C.C. No.87/2022, 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.40,000/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.30,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.30,000/- per month to respondent No.3, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent No.1 are legally married since 22.02.2004 and are blessed with two children, respondent Nos.2 and 3. Owing to the alleged extra-marital conduct of respondent No.1, she voluntarily started residing separately from the applicant with effect from 30.10.2019. The applicant made sincere efforts to resume matrimonial cohabitation and issued a legal notice dated 16.11.2020 calling upon respondent No.1 to join his company. However, respondent No.1 declined and instead filed a divorce petition before the Family Court, Raipur, making false and reckless allegations against the applicant. Thereafter, on 03.02.2022, the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Raipur, claiming exorbitant maintenance on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations regarding the income of the applicant. 3 No documentary evidence was produced in support of such claims. The applicant filed a detailed reply and adduced documentary evidence to establish that respondent No.1 had deserted him without just cause and was living an adulterous life. Though the Family Court framed four issues, the learned Judge failed to record any finding on the issues relating to desertion and adultery and proceeded to decide the issues of maintenance and quantum. By the impugned order, maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month was awarded to the respondents, which is challenged by way of present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., which clearly bars a wife living in adultery or who has deserted her husband without sufficient cause from claiming maintenance. The learned Trial Court, despite acknowledging on record that Respondent No.1 had voluntarily deserted the applicant without any justifiable reason and was living separately since 30.10.2019, failed to give effect to the statutory mandate and erroneously granted maintenance. He also submits that the learned Court further committed a grave error in law by holding that Respondent No.1’s admitted adulterous conduct for a limited period would not disentitle her from maintenance. Once the Court itself concluded, on the basis of evidence and admissions in cross-examination, that Respondent No.1 was living an adulterous life, she stood statutorily disqualified from receiving any maintenance under 4 Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. The finding to the contrary is perverse and unsustainable. He also submits that the learned family Court failed to appreciate that adultery need not be proved by direct evidence and can be established through circumstantial and presumptive evidence. The applicant led cogent oral and documentary evidence to prove continuous adulterous conduct since 2016, including admissions regarding abortion in 2022 while the parties were living separately. The Court erroneously brushed aside such evidence as a typographical error without any basis, rendering the finding illegal and against the record. 4. He further contended that the impugned order further suffers from non-application of mind as the learned Court did not record any reasoned finding on the foundational issues of desertion and adultery, yet proceeded to decide the issue of maintenance and quantum. An order passed without reasons and without adjudicating material issues is vitiated in law and violates settled principles of natural justice. He also contended that the learned Court also failed to properly assess the income, liabilities, and financial capacity of the applicant. Without any documentary proof, exaggerated and unsubstantiated income allegations of the respondents were accepted, while statutory liabilities such as loan repayments and insurance premiums were ignored. The respondents further failed to comply with the mandatory disclosure of assets and liabilities as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnish v. Neha, and admitted to filing a false 5 affidavit, which the learned Court failed to address. Moreover, the applicant had neither neglected nor refused to maintain the respondents; rather, Respondent No.1 willfully deserted him and consistently refused to resume cohabitation, including before this Court. The impugned order granting exorbitant maintenance without reasons, evidence, or statutory compliance has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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.40,000/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.30,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.30,000/- per month to respondent No.3, towards maintenance, holding that the respondent-wife and minor children were unable to maintain themselves, while the applicant was an able-bodied person having sufficient means and earning capacity. The Court further found that the applicant had neglected and refused to maintain the respondents without any justifiable cause and that the essential ingredients of Section 125 Cr.P.C. stood duly satisfied; therefore, to prevent vagrancy and to secure the basic subsistence of the respondents, the Family Court found it just and proper to grant maintenance as aforementioned. 6 7. Considering the submissions 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 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