1 2025:CGHC:38829 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 660 of 2023 Smt. Jaya Diwan D/o Kunjal Singh Diwan Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Pachri, P.S. Patewa, Tehsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Shri Pawan Kumar Paikra S/o Shri Firat Ram Paikra Aged About 27 Years R/o Housing Board Colony, Machewa, P.S., Tehsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and Impugned Order Dated 01.04.2023, passed by KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G) passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 120/2021, in the case of "Smt. Jaya Diwan V/s. Shri Pawan Kumar Paikra" may kindly be modified/set-aside and the Application filed by Applicant for grant of maintenance U/s. 125 of CrPC may kindly be allowed and the applicant/wife be provided/given sufficient amount of maintenance from the date of filing the application, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant and non-applicant are wife & husband and their marriage was solemnized on 01.05.2020 at Village Pachri, District Mahasamund (C.G). The wife/applicant filed the application under Section 125 of CrPC on the allegation that after about one month of marriage it was discovered that her husband was having relationship with one Megha Kuruvanshi which is still continued by her husband, when she queried, he also admitted the same. She advise him to avoid previous relations since marriage ceremony has taken place between them, but no stone unturned and husband was still maintaining relationship with her. He also used to say that it is his life and marriage had not performed with his consent. She had resided at Kasdol (with her in-laws and her husband) and at Mahasamund till one years of marriage. It was also pleaded further that after three month of marriage, the husband has not established any kind of relationship with her and used to talk with other girls in telephone. When the said conduct was told by her to her father-in-law and mother-in-law, the same was also objected by them. When the information was given by her to her 3 family members, then on 03.06.2021, the elders of society of family members meet at Kasdol. She has resided there till 15.06.2021 but no substantial change in behaviour of family members of husband, then again one meeting was conducted where no fruit full outcome arrived and it was ordered there to live separately. Hence she filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance as she is unable to maintain herself whereas her husband is Reader in Chhattisgarh Housing Board and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month, he also earns from agricultural and therefore, she sought maintenance from her husband of Rs. 15,000/- per month. 4. The non-applicant/husband marked his appearance before the learned Family Court and raised objection stating that she herself did not want to maintain relations with him. She did not want to restitute conjugal rights due to which elders of Adivasi Kanwar Samaj Kharha Circle were called and they ordered for divorce solemnized between them as per their custom. It was pleaded further that the wife always used to doubt his character and subsequently raised bald allegation of having illicit relationship. She used to fight on every trivial issue and was giving threatening to rope his family members on false criminal cases. He also stated that due to her cruel behaviour, the Elders of Society has ordered for divorce and also awarded Compensation to her to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- which she already accepted. She is living separately without any rhyme and reason. He also stated that the applicant/wife is sufficient is maintaining herself. He also admitted that he is reader at Chhattisgarh Housing Board from where he 4 earns Rs. 25,000/- per month but his income is already fixed for giving rent, loan, EMI, Life insurance policy etc. 5. The applicant/wife/Smt. Jaya Diwan appeared as applicant witness 1 and marked documents as Ex.A-1 and Ex.A/2. Non- applicant/Husband/Pawan Kumar Diwan appeared as Non- applicant witness 1 and marked documents as Ex.NA-1 and Ex. NA- 14. 6. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court has rejected the application of the applicant vide order dated 01.04.2023 holding that the applicant has failed to established her case and she is living separately without any sufficient reason. Hence, this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court in very mechanical manner has dismissed that application filed by the wife and leads to pass impugned order. In absence of concrete proof, the learned Family Court draws presumption that she is living separately without any reason, which is contrary to the principles of Fundamental Rights of the parties. The issue of deserting the spouse without any rhyme and reason is under the jurisdiction of competent civil court and cannot be determined in proceedings drawn under Section 125 of CrPC. The learned Family Courts drawn an inference that since there is not police report or societal meetings with respect to demand of dowry, the allegation levelled against the husband appears to be false and forge. Since, it was never the case of applicant/wife that she has been subjected to demand of dowry. Instead, appreciating the settled law that without 5 any effective cross-examination on particular point is itself amounts to admission. He further submits that the learned Family Court even appreciating the facts that the applicant/wife is having no means of livelihood, yet dismisses the application for grant of maintenance, which is contrary to the principle of natural justice and humanity. The learned Family Court without appreciating the circumstances which clearly indicate that the husband is alleging the vague allegation against the wife just to avoid to provide/give amount of maintenance. He also submits that the wife is suffering from 2021 and not a single rupee has been given to her in lieu of maintenance. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order deserves to be set- aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rightly passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. Considering the evidence and overall circumstances of the case, the Family Court has rightly held that the applicant failed to establish the essential prerequisites for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been observed that the wife is residing separately from her husband without any justifiable or sufficient cause. A fundamental condition for claiming maintenance, that the husband has given cause or compelled the 6 wife to live separately, has not been satisfactorily proved by the applicant. In the absence of such proof, the applicant cannot be deemed entitled to maintenance. The Family Court, upon a thorough examination of the pleadings and the evidence on record, has arrived at a well-reasoned, lawful, and justified conclusion in dismissing the claim for maintenance. 11. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal