1 CGHC010202792025 2026:CGHC:35596 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 653 of 2025 Rajendra Kumar Jain S/o Shri Jasraj Jain Aged About 41 Years Resident Of Village Devkar, Police Station Devkar, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Pooja Jain W/o Rajendra Kumar Jain Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Village Devkar, Police Station Devkar, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. At Present Resident Of -C/o Gokul Prasad Gupta Mathpara Ward No.11 Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. G.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Mr. Rajkumar Pali, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. The present revision petition has been preferred by the applicant assailing the order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha), District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Criminal Case No.123/2023, whereby the application preferred by the non-applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been partly allowed and the applicant has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the non- applicant/wife. 3. Brief facts of the case are that it is an admitted position that the applicant and the non-applicant are husband and wife and out of their lawful wedlock two sons, namely, Ashish Jain and Ayush Jain, were born. The non-applicant/wife instituted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month. In the said application, it was averred that after the marriage, the parties resided together at the matrimonial home, however, after some time, the behaviour of the applicant/husband became cruel and he started subjecting the non-applicant to physical as well as mental cruelty. It was further alleged that in the year 2021 the applicant assaulted her, poured kerosene upon her body with an intention to kill her, snatched away her ornaments and thereafter drove her out of the matrimonial house while retaining the custody of both the children. It was also pleaded that despite repeated requests and issuance of legal notice, the applicant neglected and refused to maintain the non-applicant and therefore, she was constrained to >le the application claiming maintenance. 4. The applicant/husband appeared before the learned Family Court and >led his reply denying all the allegations levelled against him. It was speci>cally pleaded that the non-applicant had voluntarily left 3 the matrimonial home without any su?cient or reasonable cause and that the allegations regarding cruelty and assault were false, baseless and concocted. The applicant further contended that the non-applicant is engaged in tailoring work, has an independent source of income and had also >led her Income Tax Returns for the assessment years 2015 to 2022. It was further submitted that their son Ashish Jain supported the case of the applicant by stating that the non-applicant had herself left the matrimonial home and that she was living separately on her own accord. The applicant also pleaded that he belongs to a poor family and has very limited income and, therefore, he is not in a position to pay the maintenance amount as claimed by the non-applicant. 5. The learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings of the respective parties, recording their evidence and appreciating the material available on record, partly allowed the application preferred under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the applicant/husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife from the date of >ling of the application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed a manifest error in passing the impugned order without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record. It is submitted that the allegations made by the non-applicant regarding cruelty and assault are false and fabricated and no complaint was ever lodged by her with the 4 police authorities in support of such allegations. It is further submitted that the non-applicant herself left the matrimonial home without any su?cient cause and is not entitled to claim maintenance. Learned counsel would further submit that the applicant had produced documentary evidence, including the Income Tax Returns of the non-applicant for the period from 2015 to 2022, to establish that she has an independent source of income, however, the learned Family Court failed to take the said documents into consideration. It is also contended that the applicant belongs to a poor family, has limited >nancial resources and is unable to pay the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the documents appended with the revision petition. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the non- applicant/wife had >led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. The learned Family Court, upon due appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- 5 per month to the non-applicant/wife from the date of >ling of application. The learned Family Court has taken into consideration the relationship between the parties, the statutory obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, the >nancial capacity of the applicant and the overall circumstances while determining the quantum of maintenance. The maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be excessive, arbitrary or shockingly on the higher side so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 10.Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material available on record and the >ndings recorded by the learned Family Court, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order after due appreciation of the evidence and the settled principles governing grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No jurisdictional error, illegality, material irregularity or perversity is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 11.Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12.O?ce is directed to send a certi>ed copy of this order to the learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal