1 2026:CGHC:8095 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 803 of 2024 Shri Dabbu Jaiswal S/o Late Ramlal Aged About 55 Years R/o Jaiswal Traders, Sadar Road, In Front Of Rajesh Time Center District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Sushma Jaiswal W/o Shri Dabbu Jaiswal Aged About 48 Years R/o C/o Mother Of Soma Jaiswal, House No. 464, Avanti Vihar, Telibhandha, Raipur, Thasil And District Raipur (C.G.) Other Address Jaiswal Traders, Sadar Road, In Front Of Rajesh Time Center, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara 2 - Ku. Walini Jaiswal D/o Shri Dabbu Jaiswal Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Sushma Jaiswal R/o C/o Mother Of Soma Jaiswal, House No. 464, Avanti Vihar, Telibhandha, Raipur, Thasil And District Raipur (C.G.) Other Address Jaiswal Traders, Sadar Road, In Front Of Rajesh Time Center, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sumit Jhawar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13 /02/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.C.C. No.541/2023, 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.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 30.06.2001 according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, Respondent No.1 started residing with the applicant at the matrimonial home as his legally wedded wife. Out of the said wedlock, one son namely, Akhil Jaiswal was born on 20.11.2002 and one daughter, namely Walini Jaiswal, was born on 11.04.2016. After some time of marriage, disputes allegedly arose between the parties. Respondent No.1 alleged that the applicant started harassing and ill-treating her, did not take proper care of her, and neglected to provide for her maintenance and livelihood. On account of the alleged neglect and refusal, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month, which 3 was subsequently claimed to be Rs.50,000/- per month, on the ground that she had no independent source of income for her survival. In the said application, respondent No.1 further alleged that the applicant is running a business in the name and style of “Jaiswal Traders” and is also earning income from agricultural land measuring approximately 2.05 acres, and that his total annual income is about Rs.20–25 lakhs, amounting to approximately Rs.2,08,000/- per month. The applicant filed his reply before the learned Family Court denying all the allegations made in the maintenance application and contended that the claims made by respondent No.1 regarding his income and alleged neglect were false and exaggerated. The learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 31.05.2024, allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to Respondent No.1. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 31.05.2024, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned maintenance order. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. The learned Court failed to appreciate that Respondent No.1 did not produce any cogent documentary evidence regarding the alleged income of the applicant, yet the Court assessed the income on 4 mere assumptions and passed the maintenance order without proper proof, which is contrary to law. He further submits that the learned Court further failed to consider that respondent No.1, without any sufficient cause, left the matrimonial home and is residing separately despite efforts made by the applicant to maintain cordial matrimonial relations. It is submitted that the respondent’s conduct has been improper; she allegedly misbehaved with the applicant and his family members, pressured him to live separately from his old and dependent mother, and even threatened to implicate the family in false cases. Despite counseling efforts, she did not cooperate for reconciliation, and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance. He also submits that the learned Court below did not properly consider the financial liabilities of the applicant, including the responsibility of maintaining his aged and dependent mother. The applicant has always been willing to maintain his family, but due to his limited means and other obligations, the award of maintenance is excessive and unsustainable. 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 partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per 5 month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance observing that both parties are residing separately within the same house since 2021 and that the respondent-wife was compelled to live separately on account of alleged harassment, abuse and non- payment of household expenses by the applicant. The learned Court held that the respondents are living separately for sufficient and reasonable cause and are therefore entitled to maintenance. The learned Family Court further observed that though no strict documentary proof of the exact income of the applicant was produced, the material on record, including the admission regarding “Jaiswal Traders” business and agricultural land, indicated that the applicant is an able-bodied person having sufficient means to maintain his wife and minor daughter. Relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 730/2020, the Court concluded that respondent No.1 (wife) and respondent No.2 (minor daughter) are legally entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher 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. 6 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil