1 CGHC010298312026 2026:CGHC:34751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1024 of 2026 1 - Smt. Nirmala Jain D/o- Bahur Singh Sinha Aged About 39 Years W/o Keshav Lal Jain R/o Near Balaji Chuna, Kanpa Basti, Mova, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Roshita Jain (Through Her Natural Gurdian/mother Smt. Nirmala Jain) Keshav Lal Jain, Aged About 2 Years (Now 7 Years) R/o Near Balaji Chuna, Kanpa Basti, Mova, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Keshav Lal Jain S/o Late. Shankarlal Jain Aged About 42 Years Occupation - Teacher, R/o Near Dadsena Hostel, Albelapara, Kanker, Thana And Tahsil - Kanker, District - South Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Work Place - Bal Ashram Aader, Block - Orcha, District - Narayanpur, (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Galib Dwivedi, Advocate For Non-applicant : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Virendra Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicants. None appears for the non-applicant. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants assailing the order dated 01.07.2026 passed by the learned 4th Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in M.C.C. No.726/2021, whereby the application preferred by the applicants under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance was partly allowed. By the impugned order, the learned Family Court rejected the claim of maintenance of applicant No.1 (wife) and awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2 (minor daughter) from the date of >ling of the application. Being aggrieved by the rejection of maintenance in favour of applicant No.1 and meager amount of maintenance as awarded to the applicant No.2, the applicants have preferred the present criminal revision. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the non-applicant was solemnized on 25.05.2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Fafadih, District Raipur (C.G.). Out of the said wedlock, applicant No.2 was born. According to the applicants, after the marriage, the non-applicant neglected and ill-treated applicant No.1 and failed to maintain her. It is alleged that during her pregnancy also the non-applicant did not take proper care of her and frequently abused her as well as her parental family. Owing to matrimonial discord, the parties have been residing separately since October, 2021. Consequently, the applicants >led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month for applicant No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month for applicant No.2. 3 4. After service of notice, the non-applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and >led his reply denying the averments made in the application. Thereafter, both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. 5. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 01.07.2026, held that though applicant No.1 had established that she was unable to maintain herself and that the non-applicant possessed suBcient means, she failed to establish that she was residing separately for suBcient cause or that the non-applicant had neglected or refused to maintain her. Accordingly, the learned Family Court rejected the claim of maintenance of applicant No.1. However, considering that applicant No.2 was a minor daughter, aged about two years at the time of institution of the proceedings and about seven years at the time of passing of the order, and taking into consideration the age of the parties, their social and economic status and the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2 from the date of >ling of the application. Being aggrieved by the same, hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the learned Family Court has erred in rejecting the claim of maintenance of applicant No.1 despite the admitted fact that the non-applicant is a permanent employee earning a monthly salary of Rs.71,220/- with a take-hand salary of Rs.65,844/- per month. It is contended that the learned 4 Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record and ought to have awarded reasonable maintenance to applicant No.1 also. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present criminal revision be allowed by enhancing the maintenance awarded in favour of applicant No.2 and by granting appropriate maintenance in favour of applicant No.1. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Family Court has meticulously appreciated the entire evidence adduced by the parties. The learned Family Court has recorded a categorical >nding that though applicant No.1 established her inability to maintain herself and the >nancial capacity of the non- applicant, she failed to prove that she was residing separately for any suBcient cause or that the non-applicant had neglected or refused to maintain her, which is an essential requirement for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the same time, considering the age, needs and welfare of the minor daughter, the learned Family Court has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2 from the date of >ling of the application. The >ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and do not suCer from any perversity or patent illegality. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the >nding recorded by the 5 learned Family Court, I do not >nd any illegality or in>rmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. OBce is directed to send a copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal