1 2025:CGHC:33867 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 720 of 2022 1 - Smt. M. Laxmi W/o Shri M. Yudhisthir Rao Aged About 35 Years R/o Jeenat Vihar Phase 2, Annapurna Colony, Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - M. Uday Kiran S/o Shri M. Yudhisthir Rao Aged About 10 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. M. Laxmi R/o Jeenat Vihar Phase 2, Annapurna Colony, Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - M. Harsh S/o Shri M. Yudhisthir Rao Aged About 9 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. M. Laxmi R/o Jeenat Vihar Phase 2, Annapurna Colony, Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus M. Yudhisthir S/o Shri M. Sitaiyya Aged About 40 Years R/o Pragati Nagar, Near Children Park, Zone-1 In Front Of Indira Colony, Bmy Charoda District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Praveen Soni, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Rao, learned counsel the applicants. Also heard Mr. Praveen Soni, learned counsel for the non-applicant. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to modify the impugned Order dated 26.02.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 207/2019 (A-1) by Principle Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, and pass an Order to the Respondent to Pay Rs. 10,000/- towards Maintenance of Applicants i.e, Wife and Children in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between Applicant No.1 and the Non-Applicant was solemnized on 03.02.2007 at Bhilai Charoda as per Hindu customs in the presence of relatives from both sides. At the time of marriage, the Applicant’s parents arranged all ceremonies, gave Rs. 2,50,000/- in dowry, and spent approximately Rs. 3,50,000/- on stridhan including gold ornaments and clothes. Initially, the couple lived happily for six months and later had two sons Applicant Nos. 2 and 3. However, due to repeated domestic disputes and alleged dowry demands, physical and mental harassment by the Non-Applicant and his family members resumed, compelling the Applicant to reside with her parents at Bilaspur. Despite societal intervention and payment of Rs. 50,000/- as additional dowry in 2014, the harassment continued. The Non- Applicant, allegedly addicted to alcohol, gambling, and other vices, sold the Applicant’s gold and spent his salary (approx. Rs. 20,000/- per month) on his habits rather than supporting the family. He also owns a residential house worth Rs. 50 lakhs in Andhra Pradesh and earns rental income but has failed to provide maintenance. To avoid 3 his responsibility, he filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and later a divorce petition, both of which did not result in reunion. In October 2018, the Applicant permanently began residing with her parents. Thereafter, she filed a maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (M.Cr.C. No. 207/2019), seeking Rs. 10,000/- per month. Despite interim relief being granted (Rs. 2,600/- per month), the Non-Applicant failed to pay the amount regularly. Eventually, vide judgment dated 26.02.2022, the Family Court dismissed the wife’s claim for maintenance on the ground that a decree under Section 9 of HMA existed against her, and awarded only Rs. 1,500/- for the minor sons until they attain majority. Aggrieved by this order, the Applicants have preferred the present Criminal Revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true perspective, rendering the impugned order dated 26.02.2022 (Annexure A-1) bad in law as well as on facts. The Applicant is an unemployed woman dependent on her aged parents, and the Non-Applicant has not placed any material to show that she is earning or capable of maintaining herself. The Applicant did not voluntarily leave the matrimonial home but was compelled to do so due to continuous physical and mental harassment by the Non-Applicant and his family, a fact not properly considered by the Court below. While the Family Court has acknowledged the Non- Applicant’s neglect by awarding Rs. 1,500/- towards the 4 maintenance of the minor children, it erred in denying maintenance to the Applicant despite the same basis. The awarded amount is also inadequate considering the increasing educational and living expenses of the school-going children, and it ought to have been enhanced to at least Rs. 5,000/- per month. The reliance placed by the Court below on the ex parte decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to deny maintenance to the Applicant is misplaced and contrary to settled legal principles, as several High Courts including the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Revision No. 2917/2015), Allahabad High Court (dated 26.04.2022), and Madras High Court (2015) have held that such a decree does not bar a wife’s right to claim maintenance. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the Applicants are entitled to a just and reasonable amount of maintenance. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and passed a well-reasoned judgment dated 26.02.2022. The Court rightly held that the Applicant no.1 is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as 5 there exists a decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in favour of the Non-Applicant, which indicates that the Applicant no.1 had no justifiable reason to live separately. The Court carefully examined the evidence placed on record and found that the Applicant no.1 failed to establish sufficient grounds to prove neglect or refusal by the Non-Applicant to maintain her. Further, the Court, while ensuring the welfare of the minor children, has awarded a reasonable amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month towards their maintenance, which reflects a balanced approach. The order shows due consideration to both legal and factual aspects and does not suffer from any perversity or legal infirmity. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan