1 2025:CGHC:31301 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 740 of 2020 Kuldeep Dewani S/o Shri Devidas Devani Aged About 53 Years Occupation Business, R/o H.No. 1141, Pachpedi, South Civil Line, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Sunita Dewani W/o Kuldeep Dewani Aged About 51 Years Occupation Nil, R/o In Front Of State Bank Of India, New Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Pragati Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Pragati Pandey, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 impugned order dated 13.03.2020, and dismissed the same as under challenged (Ann. A-1), in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant has preferred this first criminal revision challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the Family Court in M.J.C. No. 183/2015, whereby the non-applicant’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and monthly maintenance of ₹25,000/- was awarded. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.02.1989 as per Sindhu rites, and two sons were born out of the wedlock. The non-applicant-wife alleged cruelty, habitual intoxication, gambling, and adulterous behavior by the applicant, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home on 26.12.2013. She further stated that despite attempts at reconciliation, the applicant continued his abusive behavior, restricted her entry into the household after the demise of his mother, and ultimately compelled her to live separately. In response, the applicant denied all allegations, asserting that he built his business through hard work and that the non-applicant misappropriated cash and jewelry worth ₹20-22 lakhs, maintained contact with her maternal family against his wishes, and showed no willingness to perform her marital obligations. Mediation efforts, including those by an NGO and local dignitaries, also failed. He contended that the non-applicant filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only after he initiated proceedings under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation. Despite the evidence led by both sides, the Family 3 Court allowed the non-applicant’s application for maintenance. Aggrieved by this, the applicant has filed the present revision, stating that the impugned order is erroneous, unsustainable, and contrary to the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is erroneous, passed in a cursory and mechanical manner without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The non-applicant is a well- educated woman, skilled in cooking, and runs a YouTube channel from which she earns approximately ₹6 lakhs per annum. Additionally, her financial background, supported by her parents, is more sound than that of the applicant. The non-applicant was investing the interim maintenance amount in mutual funds, proving her financial independence. Despite this, the trial court ignored these facts. Furthermore, the non-applicant has been living separately without sufficient cause, and the allegations of harassment were not substantiated by any complaint or credible evidence. The applicant made genuine efforts to maintain the relationship through mediation, as shown in Ex-D/10 to D/16, which the non-applicant admitted. The applicant, who lives in a joint family, bears the responsibility of his two dependent sons, aged father, and household, with a modest monthly income of ₹45,000– ₹50,000, as proven by income tax returns (Ex-D/1 to D/9). The trial court wrongly assessed his income and ignored the admitted fact that the non-applicant took away a substantial amount of cash and jewelry without consent. Moreover, the medical claims made by the 4 non-applicant were unsupported, and even her doctor brother admitted she suffers from no serious ailments. Her conduct, including filing multiple cases and a delayed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., reveals an intention to harass the applicant rather than a genuine need for maintenance. Hence, the order passed by the trial court is unsustainable in law and facts, and deserves to be set aside. 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 Additional 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 order passed by the learned Family Court is just, reasoned, and based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record. The non- applicant, having been subjected to consistent cruelty, verbal abuse, habitual intoxication, gambling, and adulterous behavior by the applicant, was left with no option but to separate from the matrimonial home for her dignity and safety. Her allegations were substantiated through her testimony and supporting witnesses, and despite failed reconciliation efforts including mediation through a recognized NGO and respected individuals the applicant continued his misconduct. The Family Court rightly rejected the applicant’s baseless defenses, including unproven allegations of 5 misappropriation and financial independence of the non-applicant. Moreover, mere filing of judicial separation proceedings by the applicant does not disentitle the non-applicant from seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is a welfare provision meant to prevent destitution. Considering the applicant’s stable income and the non-applicant’s dependent condition, the Family Court rightly awarded ₹25,000/- as monthly maintenance, ensuring justice and financial security to the aggrieved wife. 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 record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan