1 2026:CGHC:2800 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1021 of 2023 1 - Smt. Jeenat Jahan W/o Zubair Ahmed Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Vidhaya Nagar, Kalibadi, Near Madarsa, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Minor Daughter Fazilat D/o Zubair Ahmed Aged About 4 Years Through Mother Smt. Jeenat Jahan, Wife Of Zubair Ahmed Resident Of Vidhaya Nagar, Kalibadi, Near Madarsa, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Zubair Ahmed S/o Mohammad Kalandar Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Lane Infront Of Mona Shop, Afroj Bagh Modhapara, Raipur (C.G.) Shop Address- Uttam Auto Parts, Kamal Art, Sindhi Bazar, Near Gujrati School, M.G. Road, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by learned 1st Additional Principal AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.12/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the appellant No.1 and the respondent are legally married and lived together at Raipur along with the respondent’s family. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. After a few months of marriage, the appellant-wife was subjected to mental and physical cruelty, ill-treatment, denial of proper food, and was even provoked to commit suicide by the respondent and his family members. Due to continuous harassment and worsening conditions, the appellant- wife was compelled to leave the matrimonial home along with the children and is presently residing with and dependent upon her brother, while the respondent neglected to maintain or care for them. Owing to financial hardship and neglect by the respondent, the appellants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, asserting that the respondent is financially well-off and earns substantial income from his business and other sources. Along with the main petition, an application for interim maintenance was also filed. The Family Court, Raipur, by order dated 16.08.2023, partly allowed the application and granted Rs.5,000/- per month to appellant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to appellant No.2. The appellants contend that the maintenance 3 awarded is grossly inadequate and does not meet even the basic necessities, including the educational expenses of the minor child. It is further alleged that the respondent failed to disclose his true income and assets before the court. Aggrieved by the inadequate grant of maintenance and improper appreciation of facts and law by the Family Court, the present revision has been filed seeking enhancement of maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is perverse, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court failed to properly appreciate the material on record and misapplied the settled principles of law while granting a meagre amount of maintenance to the appellants, despite the respondent’s failure to disclose his true income and assets, even after being specifically directed to do so. He further submits that the learned Family Court overlooked essential factors such as the educational expenses of appellant No.2 and other basic necessities including food, clothing, shelter, medical expenses, and day-to-day living costs of both appellants. The maintenance awarded is wholly insufficient to enable the appellants to maintain themselves with dignity, especially when they are residing with the brother of appellant No.1 due to lack of independent accommodation, which itself is a basic necessity of life. He also submits that the Family Court ignored material discrepancies in the respondent’s statements regarding his occupation and 4 income, clearly indicating suppression of actual earnings. The Court also failed to consider that appellant No.1 is unable to maintain herself and her minor child in a manner consistent with the standard of living she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. Thus, the learned Family Court failed to exercise jurisdiction properly and acted with material irregularity, warranting interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance observing that the applicant- wife is residing separately from the respondent for sufficient and justifiable cause, is unable to maintain herself, and that the minor daughter is living with her. The learned Family Court further held that although the exact income of the respondent was not conclusively proved to be Rs.1,00,000/- per month, he is an able- bodied person having earning capacity and is legally bound to maintain his wife and minor child. Considering the evidence on record, the standard of living of the parties, educational expenses of the minor child, and the prevailing circumstances, the learned Family Court found it just and proper to award a total maintenance 5 of Rs.8,000/- per month to the applicants, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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