1 2026:CGHC:1088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 7 of 2023 Lalit Kumar Jatwar S/o Ramjhul Jatwar Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Ghonghadih, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Present R/o A.B.E.O., Block Education Office, Baloda, Post Baloda, Tahsil And District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Divyaraj Jatwar S/o Lalit Kumar Jatwar Aged About 5 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shushma Jatwar W/o Lalit Kumar Jatwar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Rawatpura Colony, Alisha Tower, Mathpuraina, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Galib Dwivedi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Galib Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 12.08.2022 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1143/2019, whereby the learned Family Court concerned allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant that he RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C through his natural guardian for grant of maintenance. The application was filed inter alia on the ground that the marriage of applicant was solemnized on 16.06.2013 with Smt. Sushma Jatwar and out of said wedlock a son/respondent was born on 25.03.2014. It was averred that as soon as the son was born the family members of the applicant started raising question to legitimacy of child and even harassing the mother on character of mother of respondent. It was also alleged that the respondent is suffering from physical problem since his birth, therefore he requires proper medical care and physiotherapy sessions. Further it was alleged that the applicant was working on lab technician at Government Pataleshwar College, Masturi and mother of respondent was working on post Assistant teacher and upon consent both husband and wife jointly got transferred their job at Masturi so that they can live together. The applicant while working on post of lab technician qualified for post of Assistant Education officer and he was posted at Mainpat and requested mother of applicant to get her job transferred at Raipur so that proper treatment can be provided to the child. It was also averred that the mother of respondent requested the applicant to come to Mainpat so that they can usual visit but the applicant refused them to come and subsequently from February 2018 the applicant stopped meeting the mother and his child. The applicant was not taking care of the respondent and even he was not providing any financial support for medical treatment of respondent 3 therefore the applicant filed application for custody of child under Section 7 and 8 of Guardians and Wards Act and vide order dated 10.05.2019 the custody of child was granted in favor of mother and even after passing of said order of custody of child the mother along with respondent went to Baloda to reside with them but the applicant refused to keep them. The respondent is living along with his mother since 2016 at Raipur and no financial support is provided by applicant for welfare and treatment of child therefore the application for maintenance was filed up to tune of Rs. 20,000/-. 4. The case was registered on 07.12.2019 and on 08.12.2019 the notice was issued to the applicant herein. Subsequently due to outbreak of Covid-19 the proceedings of the Court was called off and again on reopening of Court on 07.08.2021 fresh notice was issued to applicant. The applicant appeared on 04.10.2021 and time was granted to the applicant to file reply to the application. The applicant filed reply and denied the averment made in the application. It was alleged that soon after the child was born the mother of respondent always urged the applicant to get his job transferred to Raipur because she didn't wanted to live at Masturi and upon request of mother the respondent applicant got his job transferred to Masturi but she kept on pressurizing applicant to get settled in Raipur. It was also alleged that mother of respondent wanted divorce from applicant and even restrained the applicant from meeting his child therefore the applicant filed application for custody of child. The mother of respondent has willfully left the house of applicant and she is residing separately from applicant since past 5 years. Further it was alleged that the applicant is always ready and willing to 4 take care of his child and provide better treatment to him but due to unwarranted behavior of mother the applicant is unable to provide any support. 5. On 11.03.2022 the applicant was unable to appear before Family Court and he was proceeded ex-parte and accordingly vide impugned order dated 12.08.2022 the final order was passed after appreciating the evidence of the respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant appeared on all previous date of hearing but due to his job it was impossible for the applicant to attend the proceeding on 11.03.2022. The learned Family Court while passing the impugned order has recorded the finding that the applicant is earning Rs,60,000/- per month and his pay would have been raised therefore the respondent is entitled for maintenance of Rs.11,000/- per month. While passing impugned order the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the applicant is also paying loan of Rs.31,779/- and even has to take care of parents therefore it is impossible for applicant to pay Rs.11,000/- per month as maintenance. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order impugned passed by the learned Family Court is against the law and facts. It is submitted that the applicant is not earning Rs. 60,000/- per month but the applicant is government servant and he earning Rs. 45,867/- per month and out of said income Rs. 18,230/- per month is paid towards home loan and further Rs. 3,805 is paid towards premium of L.I.C policy. The applicant is paying total Rs. 31,779/- towards loan and premium and he is left out with only Rs. 14,088/- which is used for maintaining his mother and father who are residing with applicant 5 therefore it is impossible for the applicant to pay Rs.11,000/- as maintenance. It is submitted that though the respondent happens to be the son of the applicant but the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the mother of the respondent is also a government servant and she is getting handsome income of Rs. 30,000/- by which she can maintain the respondent, and as she has willingly left the house of the applicant, therefore, as per Section 125(4) of CrPC, the wife who is living separately from his husband without any sufficient cause, is not entitled to be granted maintenance. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that the applicant is paying Rs. 31,779/- towards and even he has to maintain his parents and as such very deficit amount is left with him and even he has to bear his own expenses. Thus, the impugned order is liable to set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 12.08.2022 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1143/2019, whereby the learned Family Court concerned allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per month to the respondent, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side. Moreover, as per the impugned order the applicant is working as Assistant Block Education Officer and is said to earn approx salary of Rs. 60,000/-, thus, it is clear that the applicant is having the capability to maintain the respondent who happens to be his son. Hence, this Court finds that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has rightly passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. After the passing of this order, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the previous date of hearing, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had passed an order dated 08.11.2024 granting visiting rights to the applicant to meet his child/respondent in the presence of the respondent’s mother, and prayed that the said order be continued, unless any order is passed by the competent Court under The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has no objection to the continuation of the said order. 7 13. In view of the above submissions made by the parties, the prayer is allowed. The order dated 08.11.2024 shall continue, and the applicant shall be at liberty to meet his child in the presence of his wife on every Sunday or Saturday, or on any other date convenient to the applicant, his wife, and the child. 14. It is made clear that while meeting the child, the applicant shall not behave roughly either with his wife or with the child. The wife is also directed to maintain harmony and peace at the time of the applicant’s meeting with the child. 15. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar