1 2026:CGHC:5550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 588 of 2024 1 - Smt. Nitu Upadhyay W/o Naresh Upadhyay Aged About 45 Years R/o Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Manki Phase - 1, Quarter No. 20, P.S. Somani, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Swarna Upadhyay D/o Naresh Upadhya Aged About 14 Years Through Its Natural Guardian (Mother), Smt. Nitu Upadhyay, R/o Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Manki Phase - 1, Quarter No. 20, P.S. Somani, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Naresh Upadhyay S/o Late Satyarayan Upadhyay Aged About 46 Years R/o Manki Phase - 3, L.I.G. 11, Dindayal Colony, P.S. Somani, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in M.J.C No.56/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between appellant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 21.01.2005, out of which appellant No.2, their daughter, was born. Alleging cruelty on account of dowry demands, monetary expectations, and neglect, appellant No.1 along with appellant No.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, asserting that the respondent had refused and failed to maintain them. It was pleaded that the respondent and his family deliberately distanced themselves from the appellants, shifted them to Rajnandgaon in 2016 on the pretext of the child’s education, and thereafter left them to live alone without proper support. The respondent subsequently left the appellants on 04.02.2021 and started residing with his mother, discontinuing cohabitation and contact with the child. It was further alleged that the respondent is gainfully employed, earlier running a gari mill and presently engaged in private service, earning about Rs.60,000/- per month, whereas appellant No.1 has no fixed or sufficient source of income. The Family Court, while partly allowing the application, held that appellant No.1 was capable of maintaining herself and granted maintenance only to appellant 3 No.2, which finding regarding the wife’s earning capacity and the quantum of maintenance is assailed in the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent deliberately suppressed his true income and place of employment in his affidavit and evidence before the learned Family Court. Since the appellant has been living separately from the respondent, she had no means to ascertain his exact employment details; however, during their cohabitation, the respondent was earning approximately Rs.60,000/- per month from a private job, which fact has not been fairly disclosed before the Court. He further submits that the appellant is not in a position to maintain herself, as she has no fixed or sufficient source of income. Her earnings are irregular and uncertain, sometimes amounting to only Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- in a month. Any reference to an approximate income of Rs.10,000/- per month was neither categorical nor supported by evidence and occurred due to the appellant’s illiteracy and inadvertent humanitarian error, and the same ought not to have been presumed as a settled fact regarding her earning capacity from tiffin service or beauty parlour work. He also submits that appellant No.2, being a school-going daughter, is presently being maintained by the parents and brother of appellant No.1, and the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month awarded to her is wholly inadequate in view of her school fees and daily expenses, which are about Rs.200/- per day. The continued financial burden on the appellant’s parental family, who 4 are already maintaining other dependents, is steadily eroding their resources and may soon render them incapable of supporting the appellants, thereby necessitating adequate maintenance from the respondent. 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. 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 has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance observing that the applicant No.1 was justified in living separately due to proven physical cruelty, however she was earning and capable of maintaining herself, whereas applicant No.2, being a school-going daughter residing with her maternal grandparents, had no independent means of sustenance and was not being maintained by the respondent, who, despite claiming ill-health and lack of income, was an able-bodied person under a legal obligation to bear the expenses of his child’s maintenance and education. 5 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil