1 2025:CGHC:37760 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 814 of 2024 Swati Jain W/o Chetan Jain Aged About 37 Years R/o Bhawani Borewell, Baijnath Para, P.S. Gol Bazar, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant versus Chetan Jain S/o Vijendra Kumar Jain Aged About 38 Years R/o Apna Bazar Shop, Shanti Niketan, Wood Tal, Poonatoli, P.S. Gondia, District- Gondia (Maharashtra) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Premshankar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Suraj Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Premshankar Yadav, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Suraj Patel, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Revision and the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in MCC No. 1021/2023 may kindly be set aside and further grant the maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month, in the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent were married on 13.06.2012, and a daughter, Pihu Jain, was born on 15.08.2013, who is presently in the custody of the respondent. The applicant alleged that soon after the child’s birth, she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands of ₹5,00,000/- by the respondent and his family, who also taunted her for giving birth to a girl child. She further alleged that the respondent frequently consumed alcohol, abused her physically and mentally, performed unnatural intercourse, called her derogatory names, and even pressured her to establish relations with his friend, leading to severe health issues and internal ear injuries. Despite these incidents, she tried to maintain the marriage; however, on 20.04.2022, after a severe altercation, she left the matrimonial home and began residing with her parents, while the child remained with the respondent. In September 2023, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking ₹50,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent failed to appear despite service of notice, and the matter proceeded ex-parte. After recording the evidence of the applicant and her mother, the learned Family Court, by order dated 30.04.2024, dismissed the application for maintenance, leading to the filing of the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse to the facts on record, and liable to be set aside. The matter proceeded ex-parte against the respondent; hence, there was no reason to disbelieve the applicant’s uncontroverted affidavit 3 disclosing the financial status and liabilities of both parties. The trial Court failed to appreciate the applicant’s evidence that she has been bearing the school expenses of the child from her meagre salary of ₹9,000/-, while the respondent, despite owning a garment shop earning approximately ₹2,00,000/- per month and additional rental income of about ₹1,00,000/-, neglected to maintain her. The Court also overlooked settled legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqi v. Shahid Khan and Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, wherein it has been held that a wife compelled to live separately is entitled to maintenance enabling her to live in reasonable comfort, commensurate with the status she enjoyed in her matrimonial home. The Family Court’s failure to consider these aspects renders the order arbitrary and unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur, (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, after carefully considering the pleadings and evidence available on record, rightly dismissed the applicant’s application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court 4 observed that despite serious allegations, the applicant failed to substantiate her claims of cruelty, dowry demand, and the respondent’s alleged income with cogent evidence. Further, the child is already in the custody of the respondent, and the applicant did not produce proof of her own inability to maintain herself or establish that the respondent had neglected or refused to maintain her. In the absence of reliable evidence regarding the respondent’s financial capacity or any unjust refusal to maintain the applicant, the Family Court correctly exercised its discretion in rejecting the claim. 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