1 2025:CGHC:32954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 786 of 2021 Jageshwari W/o Suraj Dewangan Aged About 22 Years R/o Karkoli, At Present R/o Of Dharampur, P.S. Bhatgaon, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh .. Applicant versus Suraj Dewangan S/o Parshottam Dewangan Aged About 30 Years R/o Karkoli, Post Chungadi, P.S. Bhatgaon, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Santosh Bharat, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and impugned order dated ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.17 10:50:53 +0530 2 26.07.2021, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 204/2019, passed by Family Court Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, passed in case of "Smt. Jageshwari and another v/s. Suraj Dewangan", may kindly be set- aside with regard to nonpayment of maintenance amount to the applicant/wife and the respondent/ husband may kindly be directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 3000/- to the applicant/wife, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of maintenance. The application under Section 125 CrPC was filed by the applicant, inter alia, on the allegations that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2010 as per Hindu rituals and customs. Out of the said wedlock, the applicant and the respondent/husband were blessed with a daughter named Pari. It has been alleged by the applicant that as soon as the daughter was born, the behaviour of the respondent and his family members towards the applicant changed. The applicant has alleged that the respondent and his family members started ill-treating and assaulting her on the ground that she had given birth to a female child and that they were not ready to keep her in the family. The statement of the applicant/wife was recorded before the SDO on 04.05.2017. 3 4. Learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 26.07.2021, granted maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month for the minor girl but did not grant any maintenance to the applicant/wife. It was held by the learned Family Court that the applicant/wife failed to prove that the respondent and his family members had ill-treated her. More importantly, the Family Court held that the applicant/wife also failed to prove her case due to contradictions in her statements as mentioned in Exhibit D/1 and in her deposition before the Family Court. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law and is therefore liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to appreciate the statement of the applicant/wife. Learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to consider the pleadings of the applicant/wife, in which she categorically stated that she was ill-treated by the respondent and his family members for giving birth to a female child. He submits that in the matter of Rajnesh v. Neha & Another, reported in AIR 2021 SC 569, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the parties to file separate affidavits. In light of the said judgment, as well as the order passed by the learned Family Court, the filing of affidavits before the learned Family Court should have been followed, but the same has not been adhered to in the present case. He further submits that there is sufficient material available on record to demonstrate that the applicant was ill-treated by the respondent and his family members, and therefore, the applicant had sufficient reason to live separately 4 from her husband. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, reported in AIR 2021 SC 569. The applicant has clearly stated that she is living separately because of the ill- treatment by the respondent and his family members, and the same has been affirmed by Witness No. 2, namely Munshi Ram. He also submits that learned Family Court has denied maintenance to the applicant/wife, holding that she is living separately without any valid reason, which is incorrect. The respondent/husband had filed an application before the SDO under Section 98 of the CrPC, and in the said proceedings, the applicant clearly stated that she was ousted from the matrimonial home by the respondent and his family members because she had given birth to a female child. The statement of Kapil Gupta (PW-2) cannot be relied upon as he is an interested witness. The applicant is totally dependent upon the respondent and has no source of income; therefore, some amount of maintenance needs to be granted to her, and this fact has been completely ignored by the learned Family Court in the impugned order. He submits that the scope and object of maintenance proceedings are to prevent vagrancy and destitution, providing a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to a deserted wife. It gives effect to the fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children, and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. Merely because the applicant has refused to return to the matrimonial home does not mean that she cannot be granted maintenance, as she has 5 categorically stated the reasons for her refusal to stay in the matrimonial home. He submits that no document regarding the panchayat meeting has been adduced by the respondent. The respondent/husband has not approached the learned Family Court with clean hands, as he has not properly disclosed his income. More importantly, Witness Kapil Gupta (PW-2) has stated that the respondent has 1 to 1.5 acres of land. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to the daughter of the applicant, whereas the maintenance claimed by the present applicant was rejected, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 9. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 6 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek