1 2025:CGHC:38876 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 751 of 2023 Priyesh Dubey S/o Prakashchand Dubey Aged About 32 Years R/o Plot No. 07, Near Ekta Park, Maitri Vihar, Supela Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Riya Dubey W/o Priyesh Dubey Aged About 28 Years Currently R/o Village Dhangaon, P.S. Nawagarh, Tahsil and District Bemetara, Chhattigsarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No.242/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case is that it is an undisputed fact that the marriage between the applicant(Husband) and respondent (Wife) was solemnized on 22nd February 2019 in accordance with Hindu customs and rituals at Durg, Chhattisgarh. On 8th March 2019, the respondent’s brother, Vinay PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.06 19:00:18 +0530 2 Kumar Tiwari, took her to her parental home to celebrate the Holi festival. Subsequently, on 7th April 2019, the Applicant, along with his mother Karuna Dubey, father Prakashchand Dubey, and the respondent’s aunt Seema Dubey, brought her back to the matrimonial home at Maitri Vihar, Supela, Bhilai. However, on 2nd May 2019, the respondent returned to her parental home and has not come back since. Allegations Made by the respondent is that the respondent alleges that after residing at her in-laws’ home for a week, the applicant and his parents began demanding dowry of ₹25 lakh and furniture. She claims to have suffered physical and mental harassment as a result. Despite these alleged difficulties, she states that she continued to stay, hoping their behavior would change. The Applicant, however, denies all allegations except for the admitted facts stated above. He contends that from the very beginning, the respondent displayed aversion toward him. She frequently insulted and belittled him, claiming he was not worthy of her. She consistently refused to establish a marital relationship and demanded that he separate from his parents. These repeated demands caused the applicant considerable mental distress. Nonetheless, he chose to endure the situation in the hope that the respondent’s attitude might change. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 5th August 2019, seeking maintenance. The Family Court partially allowed the application, directing the Applicant to pay ₹3,000 per month as maintenance. The applicant filed a detailed reply presenting his side of the case; however, the Family Court passed the impugned order without properly considering the applicant’s submissions and evidence. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous both in law and on facts and is therefore not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Court failed to 3 consider that the Non-Applicant had no justifiable reason to live separately from the Applicant. There is no evidence on record to establish that she was subjected to any mental or physical cruelty by the Applicant or his parents. The learned Family Court also overlooked the fact that the Non-Applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home, asserting that the Applicant was not worthy of her. Her decision to separate was driven by arrogance and a sense of self-sufficiency. Such conduct lacks sufficient justification and falls within the purview of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., which disqualifies a wife from claiming maintenance when she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient cause. The provision is intended to protect genuinely aggrieved women, not to be misused. Furthermore, the Non-Applicant repeatedly pressured the Applicant to live separately from his parents, which is an unreasonable demand and constitutes emotional cruelty. The insistence on severing familial ties demonstrates a lack of respect for family values and had a serious impact on the mental well- being of the Applicant. This aspect was not properly appreciated by the Family Court. Additionally, on 1st May 2019, the Applicant discovered inappropriate messages on the Non-Applicant's phone from a contact named "Pushpanjali." When confronted, the Non-Applicant reacted aggressively and asserted that the Applicant had no right to check her phone. This led to a major dispute, during which the Non-Applicant even threatened to file a false domestic violence complaint. It is further submitted that prior to the marriage, the Non-Applicant was involved in a relationship with another individual from Bemetara, and she continued to maintain contact with him through WhatsApp and Facebook post- marriage. These facts reflect her lack of commitment to the marital relationship. Moreover, the Applicant is currently unemployed and suffering from depression due to the Non-Applicant’s sudden and 4 unjustified departure. Imposing a maintenance liability under such circumstances causes further financial and emotional distress to the Applicant. The court should have considered the Applicant’s fragile mental and economic condition before awarding maintenance. Lastly, the amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court is unjust and disproportionate, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that in the cross-examination of the respondent by the applicant, allegations were made against her character, suggesting that she has an illicit relationship with another man. However, the applicant has not produced any documentary evidence or substantial proof to support these claims. Therefore, making false and baseless allegations against a woman’s character without any concrete foundation amounts to cruelty, which constitutes a valid ground for the respondent to live separately from the applicant. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 5 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti