1 2025:CGHC:30219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 798 of 2025 Ajay Kumar Verma S/o Chandrabhan Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o G.K. Township, House No. - 177-A, Siltara, Bilaspur Road, Dharsiva, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Smt. Neelu Verma W/o Ajay Kumar Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Bhilai- 03, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aman Upadhyay, learned counsel the petitioner. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case and further be pleased to allow this Revision by setting aside the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District. Durg (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 843/2024 in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner and respondent were married on 26.02.2009 as per Hindu rites in Bhilai, District Durg. After initially residing with the petitioner’s parents in Rajim and later in Dharsiva, Raipur, disputes arose, primarily due to the respondent’s insistence on living separately. In 2013, the respondent returned to her parental home and filed a maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the Family Court, Durg, on 13.01.2015, directing the petitioner to pay ₹5,000/month. The petitioner complied by depositing ₹65,000 at Dharsiva Police Station in May 2015. Thereafter, the respondent resumed cohabitation, and they lived together in a rented house in Dhansuli Nardaha, where she also took a job at BPCL. Medical records show that she was treated between 2017–2020 while living with the petitioner. Despite the death of the petitioner’s father in 2017, the respondent refused to live with his family, leading the petitioner to file a divorce case, which was later settled through compromise. The couple then shifted to Adarsh Nagar, Mova, Raipur, and lived together until September 2020, when the respondent left after a quarrel, taking all her belongings. The petitioner claims he continued to provide her occasional financial support. Nonetheless, the respondent later filed for recovery of ₹5,70,000/- as arrears of maintenance from 09.12.2013 to May 2023. The learned Family Court, without proper appreciation of the 3 facts and evidence, allowed the application vide order dated 21.04.2025, directing the petitioner to pay the amount, which has aggrieved the petitioner, prompting this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, contrary to law, and liable to be set aside, as it fails to take into account crucial facts and evidence placed on record by the petitioner. Between 2021 and 2024, the petitioner made regular payments both in cash and online to the respondent-wife, details of which have been submitted through transaction memos (Annexure P/4). In addition, the petitioner bore various medical and household expenses for the respondent during this period. Despite cohabiting with the petitioner for a substantial time and voluntarily leaving the matrimonial home without just cause in 2020, the respondent has sought maintenance for the same period, which is not legally sustainable. She has also deliberately concealed these material facts from the Court and, therefore, has not approached the Court with clean hands. Further, her conduct in repeatedly threatening the petitioner with false criminal cases demonstrates a pattern of harassment, which was completely overlooked by the learned Family Court while passing the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, by its order dated 21.04.2025, has rightly 4 allowed the respondent’s application for recovery of arrears amounting to ₹5,70,000/- under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., after carefully examining the facts, records, and legal obligations arising from the earlier order dated 13.01.2015. The Court correctly held that once a maintenance order is passed, the liability to pay continues unless modified or set aside by a competent court, and any cohabitation or private arrangement between the parties does not automatically extinguish the arrears unless expressly recorded or complied with through legal channels. The petitioner’s claim of occasional payments and resumed cohabitation was unsupported by conclusive proof of full compliance with the original maintenance order. Moreover, even if the respondent lived with the petitioner for some time, it did not legally waive her right to claim the unpaid maintenance for the prior period, especially when the maintenance remained due from 09.12.2013 to May 2023. The Family Court also rightly disregarded the petitioner’s vague allegations against the respondent and focused on the enforceability of a judicially determined financial obligation meant to secure the basic subsistence of a deserted wife. Thus, the order is not only legally valid but also aligned with the objective of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is a social justice provision intended to prevent destitution. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 5 this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan