1 2026:CGHC:7141 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 286 of 2025 Minor Anvika Chaubey D/o Shri Ashish Chaubey Aged About 6 Years Through Parul Mishra (Chaubey), (Next Of Kin And Mother), Aged About 32 Years, D/o P.K. Mishra, At- Bungalow No. 63, Avni Avenue Society, Raipur, C.G., Avni Vihar, Daldal Seoni, P/s Mowa, Tehsil And District Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant versus Ashish Chaubey S/o Shri Rajendra Chaubey Aged About 36 Years At- B172, Sector B, Shahpura Bhopal, M.P. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 10.10.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in M.C.C No. 45/2023, whereby the learned Court has without considering the fact that according to the ITR of respective 3 years filed by the respondent/father, his aggregate income was more than 14 Lakhs and in the last year after filing of the petition, he deliberately filed ITR showing less income to escape his obligation of maintaining his daughter, passed the impugned judgment whereby only 5,000/- per month has been awarded to the minor which in itself is inadequate and insufficient for the living expenses of a 6 years old. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant filed an application under Section PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.10 14:08:09 +0530 2 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that her mother and father were divorced vide judgment dated 25.02.2020. It was averred that the applicant has been residing with her mother and that, for the proper upbringing of the applicant, her mother has not remarried. The applicant further stated in the maintenance application that her parents had filed a mutual divorce petition in which the Respondent–father had paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 36.5 lakhs to her mother towards permanent alimony. It was further averred in the plaint that, upon perusal of the divorce petition, it was evident that no amount was paid by the Respondent–father towards the maintenance of the minor applicant. Therefore, the Respondent–father continued to be liable to maintain her. It was also pleaded that the applicant’s mother was bearing the entire educational expenses and other co-curricular activity expenses of the applicant, amounting to approximately Rs. 35,000/- per month, including school fees. Accordingly, a maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month was sought in favour of the applicant. The respondent, after appearing before the learned Trial Court and contesting the allegations made in the maintenance application, stated in his written statement that he had paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 36.5 lakhs towards the minor applicant and her mother in Case No. 645/17, pursuant to a compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat on 14.09.2019. He further contended that due to the COVID-19 lockdown, he had lost his job and was financially dependent upon his father. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court proceeded with the evidence. The minor applicant’s mother, Smt. Parul Mishra Chaubey, was examined as PW-1. The respondent examined himself as NAW-1 and examined one Shri Aniruddh Premchandani as NAW-2. After completion of evidence and hearing arguments from both sides, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment. However, the learned Trial Court 3 failed to appreciate the facts and evidence on record and also failed to consider that the respondent had deliberately made false statements before the Court. 3. In his reply, the respondent claimed that he had been unemployed since February 2022 and was dependent upon his father. However, pursuant to the direction of the learned Trial Court, when the respondent filed his Income Tax Returns for the preceding three years, it was revealed that he had an annual income exceeding Rs. 14 lakhs. The learned Trial Court further failed to appreciate that no maintenance amount was paid by the respondent–father towards the minor applicant in the mutual divorce proceedings. This fact was duly substantiated by the deposition of NAW-2, who specifically admitted that, apart from the mutual divorce proceedings, a separate agreement had been executed between the parties concerning the education and upbringing of the minor applicant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court failed to consider the fact that the respondent–father deliberately attempted to evade his statutory obligation to maintain the minor child and even made false statements regarding his income, which were subsequently exposed when he filed his Income Tax Returns pursuant to the direction of the Court. The respondent–father, on the one hand, claimed that he had lost his job during the COVID-19 lockdown and was financially dependent upon his father, whereas the Income Tax Returns later filed by him revealed an annual income of more than Rs. 14 lakhs. The learned Trial Court ignored this material contradiction while passing the impugned order. By failing to consider the documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court passed an order granting meagre maintenance, thereby violating the settled principles of law and effectively facilitating the wrongdoing of the respondent–father. The learned Trial 4 Court failed to appreciate that the respondent deliberately filed a defective and incomplete affidavit in purported compliance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, which clearly demonstrates that from the very inception, the respondent acted with mala fide intent to avoid maintaining his minor child. The learned Trial Court also failed to appreciate that the documents annexed and produced before it clearly established that the respondent was intentionally avoiding payment of maintenance and had concealed his true income. Despite such material being on record, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order without proper appreciation of the evidence. A perusal of the mutual divorce petition unequivocally shows that no amount was paid by the Respondent–father towards the maintenance of the minor applicant, and therefore, the respondent continues to be legally bound to maintain her. It was duly demonstrated by the applicant that her mother has been solely bearing the mother’s educational expenses and expenses towards co-curricular activities, which amount to approximately Rs. 35,000/- per month, including school fees. In these circumstances, an amount of at least Rs. 30,000/- per month ought to have been awarded in favour of the applicant. The learned Trial Court further failed to appreciate that no maintenance was paid by the respondent–father towards the minor applicant in the mutual divorce proceedings, a fact which was corroborated by the deposition of NAW-2, who admitted that apart from the mutual divorce proceedings, a separate agreement was executed between the parties concerning the education and upbringing of the minor applicant. The learned Trial Court miserably failed to consider that, having regard to the Respondent–father’s standard of living, his income, and the cost of living in Raipur particularly when the minor child is studying in a private school the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month is 5 grossly inadequate to enable the minor to lead a dignified and normal life. In the absence of adequate maintenance, the minor child is bound to suffer irreparable hardship. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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 respondent, 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti