1 2025:CGHC:41475 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1268 of 2024 Rakesh Tripathi S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Tripathi Aged About 42 Years R/o Subhadra Kunj, Hanuman Nagar Near Goswami Kirana Store, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Rashmi Tripathi W/o Shri Rakesh Tripathi Aged About 36 Years R/o Subhadra Kunj, Hanuman Nagar Near Goswami Kirana Store, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Aaryansha Tripathi D/o Rakesh Tripathi Aged About 14 Years Through Legal Guardian D/o Rashmi Tripathi, R/o Subhadra Kunj, Hanuman Nagar Near Goswami Kirana Store, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Non-Applicants : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, (C.G.) in Criminal M.C.C. No.945/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the non-applicants filed under Section 125 PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.20 10:50:20 +0530 2 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to non- applicant No.2. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 before the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), seeking maintenance. It was pleaded by Non-Applicant No. 1 that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and Non-Applicant No. 2 is their daughter. The marriage was solemnized on 10.07.2003 according to social customs. It was further submitted that the parents and relatives of Non-Applicant No. 1 gave sufficient gifts and Rs. 1,50,000/- as a fixed deposit at the time of marriage, along with gold ornaments. Non-Applicant No. 1 also lodged a complaint under Section 498A IPC on 22.07.2010, in which the applicant was acquitted on merits. After acquittal, the parties resumed cohabitation, and the applicant fulfilled all responsibilities towards the non-applicants. In an effort to restore the marital relationship and secure the daughter’s future, the applicant entered into a verbal agreement during mediation under Gagan Thawait. It was mutually agreed that Non-Applicant No. 1 would withdraw the said criminal case and they would resume marital life at the applicant’s parental house in Sarkanda, Bilaspur. However, due to her attachment to property in Raipur, she refused to move to Bilaspur. Non-Applicant No. 1 later began pressuring the applicant to transfer his father’s property in Raipur into her name via registered sale deed. When the applicant declined, she subjected him to verbal abuse, refused 3 matters. She also alienated the applicant from his daughter by instilling negative thoughts about him in the child's mind, thereby depriving him of affection. Despite this, the applicant continued to pay for the daughter’s college fees and had made a fixed deposit in their name over ten years before the present maintenance application. Non-Applicant No. 1 is financially independent and runs a boutique named “Sonu Boutique,” earning approximately Rs. 50,000 per month. Yet, with the intention to harass the applicant, she has filed this application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur is contrary to the evidence and facts brought on record and is bad in law. The Learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective and erroneously passed the impugned judgment. The Court erroneously held that the non-applicants are entitled to maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as house rent, without proper evaluation of the evidence presented by the applicant. The Family Court failed to consider that the non-applicant, by her pleadings and evidence, did not prove that she is residing separately from the applicant. The Family Court overlooked the fact that the applicant is already bearing the educational expenses and other financial needs of non- applicant No. 2 (daughter), yet awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month, which is against the principles of law. It is clearly established on record that the non-applicants are residing in the 4 applicant’s house and are not living separately. Hence, they are not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court failed to consider that non-applicant No. 1 is financially independent and runs a boutique named "Sonu Boutique," earning approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month. The present application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed only to harass the applicant. The impugned judgment is based on conjecture and surmise, and is therefore liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that in accordance with the order dated 04.11.2020 and the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 730/2020, Rajnesh vs. Neha and Others, the affidavit submitted by the non-applicant No.1/wife states that she is a graduate and currently a homemaker. In rebuttal, the applicant/husband, through his affidavit, has stated that he holds a B.Com and LL.B. degree and is currently practicing as an advocate. On the basis of the analysis and evaluation of the evidence, it is evident that the applicant is earning sufficient income and is capable of maintaining the non-applicants. Further, non- applicant No. 01, Smt. Rashmi Tripathi, is the wife of the applicant, and non-applicant No. 02, Aryansha, is the minor daughter of the applicant, for whose maintenance the applicant is responsible. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the 5 applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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 Preeti