1 2025:CGHC:47495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 711 of 2022 Ojal Sur W/o Abhinav Sur Aged About 32 Years R/o C - 170, Shailendra Nagar, Larten, Raipur, Tehsil and, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Shri Abhinav Sur S/o Dr. C.N. Sur Aged About 38 Years R/o 48/345, Baren Bazar, Thana Kotwali, Raipur, Tahsil and, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Parth Shrivastava, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Ms. Deblina Maity, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in MJC No.96/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant-wife and respondent-husband were married on RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 10.06.2016 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, the applicant was subjected to mental cruelty by the respondent and his family. On 12.01.2021, when the applicant fell ill, her mother and brother took her to her parental home for treatment and care. Since then, despite repeated calls and messages requesting the respondent to take her back, he has neither responded nor made any effort to bring her home, forcing the applicant to reside with her parents and depend on them for sustenance. Left with no option, the applicant also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent is stated to be engaged in multiple businesses, including event management, marketing, a coaching institute, and an automobile showroom, earning around Rs. 6,45,000/- per month. The applicant, having no independent source of income, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. The respondent contested the claim, alleging that the applicant had willingly left the matrimonial home and was employed, capable of maintaining herself. The Family Court framed issues regarding whether the applicant was living separately due to abandonment, her inability to maintain herself, and her entitlement to maintenance. Upon appreciation of evidence, the Family Court held that the applicant was abandoned and living separately with her parents but, while deciding the second issue, based on assumptions and presumptions, concluded that she was working as an Assistant Professor at Disha College and earning income therefrom, and therefore capable of maintaining herself. The Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by 3 the parties dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant. Aggrieved by this finding, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, perverse, and contrary to settled principles of law, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the Family Court itself held that the respondent-husband had abandoned the applicant, yet failed to grant maintenance, which is a clear error. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record to prove that the applicant has sufficient means to maintain herself. The respondent failed to produce any document showing that the applicant is receiving salary from Disha College. The exhibited list relied upon by the respondent (Exhibit D/11) only contains the names of candidates eligible for the post of Assistant Professor and does not prove actual employment or income. The learned Family Court erred in presuming that the applicant is earning merely because her name appeared in the list and because she filed an income tax return, which by itself does not establish income. It is also argued that although the applicant occasionally gave motivational lectures at the college, she never received any payment for the same. Earlier, the Family Court had granted interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month, and when challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in CRR Nos. 691/2018 and 938/2018, the High Court clearly held that there was no material evidence to establish that the applicant was being paid by Disha College, while it was prima facie evident that the 4 respondent-husband had sufficient means to maintain his wife. Despite this, the Family Court misinterpreted the documents and wrongly rejected the maintenance application. It is submitted that as per settled law, even if the wife has some earning capacity, it does not disentitle her from receiving maintenance, especially when she is unable to sustain herself. Therefore, the impugned order is patently illegal and unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C., observing that the petitioner was living separately due to abandonment by the respondent, she was working as an Assistant Professor at Disha College and earning income, and therefore was capable of maintaining herself and not entitled to claim maintenance. 8. Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is a clear provision that if a person with sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself by earning income, the Court may order for maintenance to be paid. 5 9. In the present case, there is no categorical finding of the Family Court that the wife is gainfully employed or has a sustainable source of income. The mere fact that she is educated or that her name appears in a list of candidates at Disha College does not establish that she is actually working there as a Professor or receiving any salary. No salary slip, appointment letter, or any other documentary evidence has been produced by the respondent to prove her employment or income. Hence, in the absence of such proof, the mere assumption of employment cannot absolve the husband from his legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife, especially when the evidence clearly suggests neglect on his part. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.04.2022 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in MJC No.96/2018, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court concerned for fresh consideration of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record as well as the certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan