1 CGHC010114082025 2026:CGHC:37125 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 444 of 2025 Rahul Rai Father- Moti Rai Aged About 37 Years R/o- Shubash Nagar, Nandini Road, Bhilai, District- Durg, (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Parul Rai W/o Rahul Rai Aged About 33 Years R/o- Vaishali Nagar, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Rudransh Rai Aged About 9 Years, Through L.R. Smt. Parul Rai, Aged About 33 Years, W/o Rahul Rai, R/o- Vaishali Nagar, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pragati Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19 /08/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case 2 No.902/2017, 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.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance, while rejecting the said application with respect to respondent No.1. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is the husband of respondent No.1 and their marriage was solemnized on 27.04.2015 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies, from which wedlock a son, respondent No.2, was born on 01.08.2016. According to the applicant, in September 2016, respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home along with the child without any reasonable cause and despite his efforts, refused to return, and thereafter he submitted complaints before the Mahila Thana, Durg and the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon. Respondent No.1 subsequently filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Durg, alleging demand of dowry and cruelty and seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child. The Family Court initially granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month, i.e., Rs.1,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- to respondent No.2. During the proceedings, both parties filed affidavits in terms of the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, wherein the applicant stated that he was unemployed, had no source of income and possessed neither any property nor ancestral property. However, vide order dated 22.01.2025, the learned Family Court directed the applicant 3 to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said order, particularly on the ground that his financial capacity and affidavit disclosing his unemployment and lack of income were not properly considered, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, is arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to law, as the learned Court failed to properly consider the affidavit filed by the applicant in compliance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha regarding disclosure and assessment of the husband’s financial capacity. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the allegations made by respondent No.1 in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were largely omnibus in nature and that there was insufficient material to establish the applicant’s actual income and financial capacity. The Court was required to ascertain whether the applicant had sufficient means to pay the maintenance claimed. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the applicant’s specific assertion in his affidavit that he is unemployed, has no independent source of income and owns no property or ancestral property. Therefore, the impugned order directing payment of maintenance without properly assessing his actual financial capacity has resulted in grave injustice and warrants interference. 4 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 Cr.P.C., rejecting the claim of respondent No.1/wife while allowing the claim of respondent No.2/minor son. The learned Family Court held that respondent No.1 failed to establish any sufficient or reasonable cause for living separately from the applicant and, on the basis of her statement recorded before the SDM and the surrounding circumstances, found that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and had not made sincere efforts to resume cohabitation despite the applicant’s alleged attempts to bring her back. However, the Court found that the minor child had no sufficient independent means of maintenance and that the applicant, being his father, was legally and morally liable to maintain him. Accordingly, considering the applicant's earning capacity, the needs of the minor child, including education and medical expenses, and the rising cost of living, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to 5 respondent No.2 from the date of the application, i.e., 21.08.2017, till his attaining majority, with adjustment of the interim maintenance already being paid. 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. 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