1 2026:CGHC:13031 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 335 of 2026 1 - Sheshmen Rajwade W/o Rajendra Rajwade Aged About 28 Years R/o Karakpur ( Jharokhadand ), Ps Jainagar, Tahsil And District- Surajpur ( C.G. ). 2 - Priyanshu Rajwade S/o Rajendra Rajwade Aged About 7 Years Natural Guardian Mother Sheshmen Rajwade 28years W/o Rajendra Rajwade R/o Binkara Ps Lakhanpur, District- Surguja ( Chhattisgarh.R/o Karakpur ( Jharokhadand ), Ps Jainagar, Tahsil And District- Surajpur ( C.G. ). 3 - Hemant Rajwade S/o Rajendra Rajwade Aged About 1/2 Years Natural Guardian Mother Sheshmen Rajwade 28years W/o Rajendra Rajwade R/o Binkara Ps Lakhanpur, District- Surguja ( Chhattisgarh.R/o Karakpur ( Jharokhadand ), Ps Jainagar, Tahsil And District- Surajpur ( C.G. ). ... Petitioners versus Rajendra Rajwade S/o Masat Ram Rajwade, Aged About 34 Years R/o Binkara, Ps And Tahsil- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Yadav, Advocate on behalf of the Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.03.2026 1. This criminal revision has been :led by the petitioners with the following prayer: “it is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 29/10/2025 (Annexure- RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 A/1), passed by Ld. Judge, Family court, Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal case No. 86/2024, parties "Sheshman rajwade & other Vs. Rajendra Rajwade" and enhance the maintaince amount in favor of petitioner no. 02 and 3 as this Hon'ble court may deem 9t and in favor of the petitioner no. 01 may grant a maintenance for the survival of the wife, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner No.1 and the respondent are legally wedded husband and wife, and out of their wedlock, two children, namely petitioner Nos. 02 and 03, were born. The petitioners :led an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance on the ground that petitioner No.1 was unable to maintain herself and her minor children due to alleged neglect and abandonment by the respondent, and further alleged that the respondent has su<cient agricultural land and earning capacity, with an annual income of about Rs.5,00,000/- and additional monthly income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, and accordingly claimed maintenance of Rs.11,000/- per month. In compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, both parties :led their respective a<davits disclosing their :nancial status, and the respondent contested the claim by :ling a detailed reply. Upon consideration of the pleadings, a<davits, and material available on record, the learned family Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- each to petitioner Nos. 02 and 03 (total Rs.3,000/- per month), while rejecting the claim of petitioner No.1 (wife). Being aggrieved by the 3 inadequate grant of maintenance and rejection of her claim, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law, inasmuch as it has erred in rejecting the claim of maintenance of petitioner No.1 (wife) despite there being su<cient material on record demonstrating her inability to maintain herself. It is further submitted that the learned family Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence showing that the respondent has neglected and failed to maintain the minor children adequately, and despite there being su<cient material indicating that the respondent has a stable source of income of about Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, an unreasonably meagre amount of Rs.1,500/- each has been awarded to petitioner Nos. 02 and 03. It is also contended that the learned Family Court has overlooked the fact that the respondent is living in adultery with another woman despite having a legally wedded wife and two children, and the petitioner has also lodged a complaint in this regard before the concerned authorities. Thus, the impugned order suAers from non-application of mind, is against the facts on record and settled law, and therefore deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the pleadings of the parties, 4 and the material available on record, it appears that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and passed a well-reasoned and justi:ed order. The learned family Court, after duly considering the a<davits :led by both parties in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, has properly assessed the :nancial capacity of the respondent and the needs of the claimants. The grant of maintenance of Rs.1,500/- each to petitioner Nos. 02 and 03 reBects a balanced and reasonable approach based on the available material. Furthermore, the rejection of the claim of petitioner No.1 (wife) is based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is in accordance with law. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the impugned order and the :nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in:rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certi:ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan