1 CGHC010093042025 2026:CGHC:37133 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 324 of 2025 Jaikumar S/o Shivpal Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Baraidand, Premnagar, Police Station and Tahsil Premnagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Fulmati Yadav W/o Jaikumar Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Tikarapara, Ward No.1, Premnagar, Police Station And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) 2. Kajal Yadav D/o Jaikumar Yadav Aged About 14 Years Minor, Hence Represented By Their Mother Namely Fulmati Yadav (Non-Applicant No. 1) R/o Village Tikarapara, Ward No.1, Premnagar, Police Station And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) 3. Tanmay Yadav S/o Jaikumar Yadav Aged About 12 Years Minor, Hence Represented By Their Mother Namely Fulmati Yadav (Non-Applicant No. 1) R/o Village Tikarapara, Ward No.1, Premnagar, Police Station And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2026 1. The applicant has filed the present criminal revision against the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 126/2023, whereby the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance filed by PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.20 15:09:50 +0530 2 the non-applicants has been partly allowed and directed the applicant/husband to pay of amount of Rs. 4,500/- (Rs.1,500/- each). Hence this revision. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the non-applicants (wife and children) filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance mentioning in it that the marriage was solemnized along with the applicant/husband on 12-05-2007 as per the caste, custom prevailing in the Hindu Caste and they blessed with two children. It is alleged that in the year 2021, the applicant used to ill-treated the wife and threatened her. It is also alleged that the applicant performed the second marriage and the wife sought the maintenance to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month. The applicant/husband filed his reply and it was pleaded in the reply that the wife is working as a Aganbadi Worker and used to earn Rs.10,000/- and she has deliberately not mentioned her income and she is having sufficient source of income for her livelihood.on the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned family Court framed 04 issues and after determining the issues, the learned family Court directed to the applicant/husband to pay a sum of Rs.4500/-(Rs.1500/- each), hence this revision 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and the same is liable to be set-aside. The learned family Court failed to appreciates the evidence and documents available on record. The learned family Court failed to appreciate that the wife is working as Aganbadi Worker and she used to earn sum of Rs. 10000/- per month by performing the work and the wife has not mentioned this fact when the affidavit filed by the wife before the learned family Court in compliance of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha, so the order of 3 maintenance in respect of wife is liable to be set-aside as she is having sufficient source of earning for her livelihood. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti