1 2025:CGHC:45984 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 361 of 2024 Dr. Jaishree Tandon W/o Dr. Praveen Saroj Khunte Aged About 34 Years R/o Behind The School, Amlidih, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Dr. Praveen Saroj Khunte S/o Shri Chattu Lal Khunte Aged About 37 Years R/o House No.10 Gaurav Path, Mahima Vihar Colony, Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Parth Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Palak Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 473/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, by passing the impugned order, dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the marriage of the applicant and the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 respondent was solemnized on 07.05.2019 as per Hindu rites and customs at Kings Club of India, VIP Road. Rajiv Marg. Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) the applicant had filed an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case no. 473/2023 inter alia stating that prior to the marriage between the applicant and the respondent, the in-laws (father of the respondent) had provided assurances to the applicant regarding her academic pursuits. Specifically, they assured the applicant that they would ensure the completion of her studies for the course of M.D.S. during the marriage ceremony, the father and sister of the respondent created a disturbance on the stage, leading to an argument with the father of the applicant regarding dowry and inadequate arrangements for the wedding. The in-laws began demanding a four-wheeler on the spot and threatened the applicant and her family with withdrawal from the marriage. 4. In order to prevent further disruption to the wedding, the father of the applicant gave I Lakh to the father and sister of the respondent. Both recipients farbade the father of the applicant from disclosing this transaction to anyone. At the time of the marriage, the father of the applicant bestowed her with stridhan in the form of gold and silver ornaments, utensils, Rs. 2.71.000/- in cash, and a fixed deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The applicant was also given gold, which was handed over to the father and sister of the respondent. Additionally, the father and mother of the applicant had given her Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20.000/- respectively during the Vidai ceremony. However, these amounts were taken by the in-laws of the applicant on the very next day following the marriage. When the applicant attempted to inquire about the stridhan received by her at the time of marriage from the respondent, the 3 respondent evaded the subject for a few days. Later, when pressed for answers, the respondent revealed that the stridhan was kept with his father. 5. However, upon approaching the father of the respondent to inquire about the stridhan, the applicant was subjected to verbal abuse by her in-laws. Subsequently, the respondent physically assaulted the applicant and asserted that the marriage had been financed through a loan and that needed to be repaid. Furthermore, the respondent threatened the applicant, stating that if she did not procure money from her father, he would sell the stridhan to repay the loan. following the continued abuse and harassment from the respondent, the applicant sought intervention by confiding in her in-laws. Upon learning about the situation, the respondent's brother-in-law confronted him about his inappropriate behavior. leading to assurances from the respondent that he would refrain from such actions in the future. However, apprehensive of a recurrence, the applicant felt compelled to confide in her father about her concerns. 6. On the next day, when the applicant's father visited her in-laws' house, the respondent's sister and father took a domineering stance, stating that the applicant should not involve her family in such small incidents. on the same occasion, the respondent stated to the applicant's father about his financial difficulties, stating that a settlement could be reached only if the applicant's father provided financial support otherwise both the partners can lead to their own way. Despite this, the respondent's father acknowledged the matter as internal and expressed regret, assuring that such incidents would not happen again. despite assurances, the harassment persisted and escalated over time. The applicant, initially hesitant to speak out due to the early stage of her marriage. 4 7. Eventually felt compelled to inform her family about the ongoing mistreatment inflicted upon her by her husband and in-laws. the applicant was given Fixed Deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- from her father. The respondent after some time of the marriage pressurized the applicant to withdraw the money and on 19.11.2019 withdrawn the money. The applicant utilized all the money and made assurance that he will return the money after 2 months but same has not been returned till now. the respondent never treated good with the applicant. The respondent and her in laws never wanted that the applicant shall pursue M.D.S. for which they always kept the applicant busy with one or the other household work. Whenever the applicant discussed about the same the respondent used to reply the applicant stating that she has been brought to the house to do only household works. 8. Both the respondent and the applicant are doctors. Despite this, the respondent oversaw the operations of the hospital owned by the applicant without providing any financial compensation, salary, profit share, or assistance to the applicant. Whenever the applicant requested financial support, the respondent responded with aggression, often resorting to verbal and physical abuse. the respondent engaged in non- consensual physical relations with the applicant. When the applicant voiced her objections, she faced further physical violence and mistreatment. Additionally, the father of the respondent would intrude into the applicant's personal space under various pretexts. causing immense discomfort to the applicant. Despite the applicant's attempts to address these issues with her husband, the respondent would dismiss or ignore her concerns. The applicant was determined to pursue higher education and appeared for the entrance exam for M.D.S. She successfully cleared the examination in the academic year 2021-22. However, the substantial 5 amount required for the college fees, totaling Rs. 15,00,000/- for three years, posed a significant obstacle. When the applicant asked about the fees from the respondent, the respondent refused to provide the necessary funds, thereafter the respondent requested to the father of the applicant seeking financial assistance to provide Rs. 5,00,000/- on the pretext to deposit the fees of the applicant but the amount never used to deposit the fees instead of that the respondent has misappropriated the said amount. Much later the respondent deposited the fees of the applicant in part payments but never returned the amount to the father of the applicant. Subsequently, when the respondent also needed financial assistance for his own education expenses, he resorted to demanding money from the applicant. When the applicant failed to comply, she was subjected to physical violence. 9. In order to fulfill the respondent's demands and avoid further abuse, the applicant borrowed Rs. 1,04,000/- from a friend and sold her jewelry to pay the fees. The respondent used to give only 20/- to the applicant for daily expenses in the college and said that this 20/- is the expenses for 4- 5 days. the respondent persistently pressured the applicant to demand Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from her father as compensation for alleged losses incurred by the applicant in the hospital. Following an assault by the respondent, the applicant retrieved her jewelry and sold some of it to fulfill his demands. Despite this, the respondent continued to press the applicant to sell the remaining jewelry. When the applicant refused, she was subjected to further physical violence and verbal abuse. 10. On 12.03.2023 the physical harassment peaked when the applicant started to inquire about the remaining fee which has to be deposited in the College for her course of M.D.S. The respondent on the response started to abuse and harmed the applicant physically and also attempted 6 to kill the applicant. On the sense of fear the applicant confided the brother in law of the respondent and her parents. on 12.03.2023, when the applicant's parents visited her in-laws' house, the respondent and his father behaved rudely towards them and even threatened them with violence and stated that you shall take the applicant with yourself we want herself to be in our home. In response to this mistreatment, the applicant's parents, feeling threatened, took her away from the situation to Raipur. following the respondent's selection for M.D.S., he began pressuring the applicant and her father for money to fund his studies. Under immense duress, the applicant borrowed Rs. 50,000/- from her colleague. Dr. Nitish Rai, and raised an additional Rs. 54,000/- by pledging her jewelry, totaling Rs. 1,04.000/-, which was given to the respondent. Exploiting the applicant's vulnerability, the respondent coerced her into investing Rs. 80,000/- in trading, which resulted in losses. The respondent subjected the applicant significant emotional distress over this loss. 11. Further, succumbing to pressure, the applicant's father was compelled to buy a laptop for the respondent, for which Rs. 30,000/- was provided. It is crucial to note that despite the respondent's substantial earnings from the hospital, he continued to financially, physically, and mentally torment the applicant, purely out of malicious intent, while the applicant, as a doctor herself, contributed equally to the hospital's operations and management. The respondent operates a polyclinic named Shree Shyama Health Care and Research Center in Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, generating an income of approximately Rs. 3,00,000/- per month. Additionally, the applicant owns 7 shops on Sipat Road, Bilaspur, which are rented out, yielding an income of about Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. Conversely, the respondent operates 3 taxi vehicles for rental purposes, 7 generating an income of approximately Rs. 60.000/- per month. Consequently, the applicant's total monthly income amounts to approximately Rs. 4.60.000/-. 12. It is pertinent to note that the respondent resides in his own property, and the applicant's father, a retired bank officer, receives a sufficient pension to cover his and his family expenses comfortably. Therefore, the respondent does not bear any financial burden attributable to his parents. The applicant is currently enrolled in M.D.S. studies, for which she incurs annual fee of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Additionally, she resides in a hostel in Bilaspur, incurring further expenses amounting to approximately Rs. 2,80.000/- annually. Consequently, the applicant bears a total expenditure of approximately Rs. 7,80,000/- per year, which solely rests upon the responsibility of the respondent. 13. The applicant currently requires Rs. 65,000/- per month to cover her educational and other expenses. Presently. the applicant meets these financial needs by seeking assistance from her father and other relatives, leading to embarrassment. However, it is essential to note that, as per regulations, the entire responsibility for these expenses should fall on the respondent, which would serve the interest of justice. Due to the respondent's physical abuse, verbal harassment. and mistreatment, the applicant is compelled to live separately and pursue higher education for a promising future. She is currently receiving financial assistance from others to sustain herself under severe financial constraints. It is crucial to highlight that the respondent is responsible for creating this dire situation for the applicant. Considering the respondent's financial prosperity and the applicant's inability to sustain herself, the applicant requires a maintenance amount of Rs. 65,000/- per month. This allowance would enable the applicant to meet her basic needs, as the respondent is fully 8 capable of providing this support. 14. After issuance of notice, the respondent filed the reply and denied the contentions of the applicant. The learned Family Court without appreciating the evidence and material available on record has passed the impugned order and dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. Hence, this application. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. It is further submitted that the respondent operates a polyclinic named Shree Shyama Health Care and Research Center in Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, generating an income of approximately Rs. 3,00,000/- per month. Additionally the respondent owns 7 shops on Sipat Road, Bilaspur, which are rented out, yielding an income of about Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. Moreover, the respondent operates 3 taxi vehicles for rental purposes, generating an income of approximately Rs. 60,000/- per month. Consequently, the respondent's total monthly income amounts to approximately Rs. 4,60,000/-. It is pertinent to note that the respondent resides in his own property, and the respondent’s father, a retired bank officer, receives a sufficient pension to cover his and his wife’s expenses comfortably. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 16. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, in which in para 90 of the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “ 90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance 9 by the husband. The courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments: 90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna, this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. 90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. 90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kales while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha, held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance. 90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be 10 drawn by the court. 90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan cited the judgment in Chander Parkash with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife.” 17. 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 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, whereby the learned Family Court dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance, and submits that there is no any interference is called for. It is further submitted that the applicant is a highly qualified dental professional, having completed her Master’s Degree in Maxillofacial Surgery (MDS) and is also in possession of a Dentist Registration Certificate authorizing her to practice as a Maxillofacial surgeon, and it is submitted that it is highest earning branch of dentistry. It is further submitted that the applicant was issued a job offer letter dated 10.03.2025 by Maa Banglamukhi Multispeciality Hospital, Ranapur, District Jhabua (M.P.). Subsequently, a relieving order dated 19.06.2025 was issued by the said hospital, wherein she had worked as an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon. These documents establish that the applicant was professionally engaged and earning during the relevant period. On 21.06.2025, the applicant entered into a Professional Service Agreement with Glamlooks Studio Private Limited, situated at Ahmedabad, Gujarat. As per the terms of the said agreement, she was entitled to professional fees of up to Rs. 5,40,000/- per annum, with a clause for annual appreciation. The agreement clearly shows that the applicant is engaged in remunerative professional commitments. It is also submitted that the 11 applicant is neither unemployed nor dependent. On the contrary, she is an Maxillofacial surgeon with substantial earning capacity, who has been professionally employed and is presently engaged in private practice. The concealment of these material facts amounts to suppression and disentitle her from claiming maintenance. 18. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that at present, the applicant’s clinic, for the establishment of which she had taken a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- (Fifty Lakhs) from the bank, remained incomplete as the construction work of the hospital was halted due to the COVID pandemic. Gradually, the construction work was completed, and the applicant voluntarily shifted the equipment of her Tikrapara, Raipur- based clinic to the said hospital. Currently, the respondent is heavily burdened with the bank loan, and in addition to the loan installment of Rs.45,000/- (Forty-Five Thousand) per month, he has to bear recurring expenses of the hospital, including shop rent of Rs.31,000/- (Thirty-One Thousand), staff payment of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand), and electricity bills of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) per month. Because of this, the hospital has almost come to a standstill, and due to the non-payment of loan installments, the bank has filed a recovery case before the DRT, Jabalpur. The applicant herself earns an income, and she has also submitted her income tax returns for the years 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24, which show her annual income exceeding Rs.4,50,000/- (Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand). Therefore, since she is independently earning, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance amount from the respondent. Furthermore, in compliance of the order dated 20.08.2025, the parties were referred to the Mediation Centre, but due to some extraordinary demands made by the applicant from the respondent to settle their dispute, the mediation was failed. Therefore, the instant revision being 12 devoid of merits, and is liable to be dismissed. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 20. From a perusal of the records, it is found that both parties are doctors and are presently pursuing M.D.S. studies. Both parties have stated that the fee for this course is Rs.15,00,000 (fifteen lakh rupees) for three years. The applicant earlier used to run her own clinic in Raipur, but after marriage, all the machines of her clinic were shifted by the respondent to his clinic located in Bilaspur, as a result of which the applicant’s clinic was closed after marriage. The applicant had taken a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- to start her clinic, but due to the COVID pandemic, construction of the hospital was delayed. Later, the hospital was completed, and she voluntarily shifted equipment from her Tikrapara, Raipur clinic to the said hospital. The respondent is already burdened with heavy liabilities, including monthly loan installments of Rs.45,000/-, shop rent of Rs.31,000/-, staff salary of Rs.50,000/-, and electricity bills of Rs.15,000/-, leading to near closure of the hospital. Due to non- payment of installments, the bank has also filed a recovery case before DRT, Jabalpur. In the case, the respondent, on the basis of the applicant’s income tax return, has stated that she earns income, and her income shown as above Rs. 4,50,000 (four lakh fifty thousand rupees) in her income tax return. In her application, she has stated that she does not earn any income. In such a situation, it is found that the applicant is an income earning lady. Though the applicant is living separately due to the harassment given to her by the respondent and his family members, and therefore, her reason for living separately is considered sufficient, but it is not proved that the applicant does not earn any income. Furthermore, in compliance of the order dated 20.08.2025, the parties were referred to 13 the Mediation Centre, but due to some extraordinary demands made by the applicant from the respondent to settle their dispute, the mediation was failed. Accordingly, the prayer made by the applicant is not fit to be accepted, as the case-law cited by the counsel for the applicant is not applicable for the facts and circumstances of the present case. 21. 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, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) has passed the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 473/2023, and rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant, for grant of maintenance, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same warranting interference by this Court. 22. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 23. Let a certified copy of this order as well as the original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week, for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar