1 CGHC010173732025 2026:CGHC:36286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 591 of 2025 Chandra Kumar Jaiswal S/o Ram Jaiswal Aged About 45 Years Occupation Supervisor, R/o Village Tadipar P.O. Parsada And Ps Kedar Tehsil Sarangarh Distt Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt Savita Jaiswal W/o Rambisal Aged About 35 Years R/o Riyapara, Tehsil Raigarh Distt Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Prem Jaiswal S/o Chandra Kumar Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother, Smt Savita Jaiswal W/o Rambisal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Riyapara, Tehsil Raigarh Distt Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Piyush Jaiswal S/o Chandra Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 8 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother, Smt Savita Jaiswal W/o Rambisal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Riyapara, Tehsil Raigarh Distt Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.02/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 41 days in filing the instant criminal revision. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.F-01/2022, 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.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 and 3, towards maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is the wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 13.02.2005 according to the prevailing customs, and out of the said wedlock, two children were born. It is alleged that after marriage, the respondent and his family members subjected the applicant to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, pursuant to which a meeting was convened by her father and an agreement dated 09.04.2007 was executed, whereby the 3 respondent assured to improve his conduct; however, he again subjected her to similar ill-treatment, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and reside at her parental house. As the applicant had no sufficient source of income to maintain herself and the children and meet their educational and daily needs, she filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the learned Family Court, Raigarh. The respondent contested the application, alleging that the applicant had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and was earning approximately Rs.1,000/- per day from a beauty parlour, and further stated that he was bearing the school expenses of the children. Nevertheless, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.3. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent has preferred the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record, particularly the admitted position that the respondent is earning through a beauty parlour and has sufficient means to maintain herself. The Court below also failed to consider the applicant’s financial responsibility towards the family. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is residing separately from the applicant without any sufficient or reasonable cause and has refused to live 4 with him despite his willingness to maintain her. The applicant is also stated to be willing to bear the expenses of applicant Nos.2 and 3 and is already paying their school fees. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the income of the respondent from the beauty parlour and the fact that maintenance cannot be claimed for the purpose of maintaining a luxurious lifestyle. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order awarding maintenance to applicant Nos.2 and 3 is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside/quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that 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.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 and 3, towards maintenance, holding that the respondents had sufficient and reasonable grounds to reside separately from the applicant, particularly in view of the evidence regarding his association with another woman and his failure to establish that the respondents were living separately without sufficient cause. The learned Family Court further held that respondent Nos.2 and 3, being minor children, were dependent upon the applicant for their maintenance, and that respondent No.1, though alleged to be 5 earning through a beauty parlour, had not been proved to have sufficient independent income to maintain herself. Considering the applicant's earning capacity, agricultural income, overall financial circumstances of the parties, and the needs of the respondents, the Family Court awarded a total maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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