1 2025:CGHC:40551 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 476 of 2024 Dr. Rajesh Kumar S/o Muneshwar Prajapati Aged About 40 Years Director Imi Hospital, R/o Imi Hospital, Block No. 18, Plot No. 4, Ward No. 28, Shivaji Nagar, Ps Khursipar, Bhilai, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Sunita Prajapati W/o Dr. Rajesh Kumar Aged About 36 Years Sirsa Gate, Umda Road, Vitthalpura, Block C, Flat No. 307, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vivek Kumar Prajapati S/o Dr. Rajesh Kumar Aged About 10 Years S/o Muneshwar Prajapati Age 40 Years, Director Imi Hospital, R/o Imi Hospital, Block No. 18, Plot No. 4, Ward No. 28, Shivaji Nagar, Ps Khuripar, Bhilai, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. (During The Pendency of The Petition Before The Ltd. Court Below, The Respondent No. 2 Started Staying With The Applicant) ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Applicant humbly prays that RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: 1. Call for the entire records relating to the present case from the Ld. Court below; 2. Allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order the Ld. Principal Judge, Family dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Ld Court, Durg in Misc Case No. 764 of 2018, in the interest of justice; and 3. Any, other orders, directions & reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.1 was solemnized on 21.05.1998 at Village Durg, Chhattisgarh, according to Hindu rites, and a son, Respondent No.2, was born on 05.02.2018. It is alleged by the Respondents before the Ld. Trial Court that the Applicant is involved in extra-marital affairs and has been harassing Respondent No.1 to leave the matrimonial home and consent to divorce, citing previous and present affairs, and that since 2018 the parties have been living separately with the Applicant refusing to maintain the family, leading to an application under Section 125 CrPC. The Applicant, in his written statement, submitted that Respondent No.1 voluntarily deserted him four years prior to the filing of the application without any cause, refused cohabitation, and is earning Rs. 15,000 per month from stitching, while he earns Rs. 20,000 as a hospital manager. It was further stated that the Respondent had earlier lodged false criminal cases under Sections 494, 498A, and 34 IPC, in which the Applicant and his family were 3 acquitted, and that she demanded money under threats of false implication, maintained an extra-marital affair with a hospital clerk, and instigated false cases upon being confronted. It was also alleged that Respondent’s brother committed a sexual offence against the minor son, which was later settled at her request, after which the son began residing with the Applicant’s father. The Ld. Trial Court, after framing eight issues, rejected maintenance for the son but presumed the Applicant’s income to be Rs. 50,000 despite evidence to the contrary, and granted Rs. 15,000 monthly maintenance to Respondent No.1, ignoring that she is already receiving Rs. 5,000 under the Domestic Violence Act, has independent income, and that the Applicant has the responsibility to maintain his parents and son. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments, bad in the eye of law, and against the rules of justice, causing irreparable loss to the Applicant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohtash Singh v. Smt. Ramendrei & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 180, and this Hon’ble Court in Shiv Kumar Yadav v. Santoshi Yadav, Crl. Revision No. 544/2003, have held that a wife who deserts her husband without cause is not entitled to maintenance, which squarely applies here as Respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home voluntarily. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Rupali Gupta v. Rajat Gupta, (2016) 234 DLT 693, and 4 Damanreet Kaur v. Indarmeet Juneja, (2013) 1 JCC 306, held that a qualified and earning wife is not entitled to maintenance; in the present case, Respondent No.1 is qualified, capable of maintaining herself, and working as a teacher. Even the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 DMC 170, held that a qualified wife voluntarily sitting idle cannot claim maintenance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deb Narayan Haider v. Smt. Anushree Haider, AIR 2003 SC 3174, has directed that maintenance should not be awarded in the absence of harassment, which Respondent No.1 has neither proved nor averred. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Bheekha Ram v. Goma Devi & Ors., 1999 CriLJ 1789, has also held that a wife residing with her parents after leaving her matrimonial home at will is not entitled to maintenance. Moreover, in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 25% of the husband’s income is an appropriate amount of maintenance, which in that case included the child’s share; here, the Respondent No.1 alone has been granted Rs. 15,000 per month without justification. The Applicant’s parents, being of old age, are wholly dependent on him for their livelihood, regular medical check-ups, and medicines, along with his responsibility to maintain his minor son, hence, sustaining the impugned order would cause undue hardship and financial burden upon him. The maintenance awarded is excessive and unjustified, and the order, being perverse and contrary to settled legal principles, deserves to be set aside. 5 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the marriage between the Applicant and Respondent No.1 was solemnized on 21.05.1998 at Village Durg, Chhattisgarh, according to Hindu rites, and a son, Respondent No.2, was born on 05.02.2018. Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and material on record, the Learned Family Court rightly found that the Applicant has been involved in extra-marital affairs, subjected Respondent No.1 to harassment with the intent to compel her to leave the matrimonial home and consent to divorce, and has been living separately from her since 2018 without providing any maintenance. The Court further took note of prior conduct, including allegations of earlier affairs and the Applicant’s refusal to support his legally wedded wife, which necessitated her application under Section 125 CrPC. While rejecting the claim for maintenance of the minor son who resides with the Applicant’s parents the Court, on a reasonable appreciation of the Applicant’s earning capacity, correctly assessed his income at Rs. 50,000 per month, notwithstanding his contrary claims, and awarded Rs. 15,000 per month as maintenance to Respondent No.1. In doing so, the Learned Court rightly considered the status of the parties, cost of living, and the Applicant’s legal obligation to maintain his wife, and held that the Respondent’s receipt of Rs. 5,000 under the Domestic Violence Act did not preclude her entitlement under Section 125 CrPC. 6 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan