1 2025:CGHC:41504 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1336 of 2024 Sunil Yadav S/o Mansai Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Narmadapara ( Amapara ), P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Archana @ Shivani W/o Sunil, Aged About 23 Years R/o Ring Road, Namnakala, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:- (a) Call for the record of the proceedings. (b) Set aside the impugned Order dated 22.6.2024 (ANNEXURE-A/1) passed by the Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) in Miscellaneous Criminal case No. 135/2019, in the interest of justice. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 (c) Pass any other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the present facts and circumstance of the case.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the Applicant and the Respondent was solemnized in the year 2017 according to traditional customs and rituals, and from the said wedlock a child was born on 31.08.2018. The Respondent thereafter filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court alleging harassment, neglect, and denial of maintenance during her pregnancy and after the birth of the child. The Applicant appeared and denied the allegations, contending that the Respondent had voluntarily deserted him, refused to live with the joint family, denied him conjugal rights, and frequently left for her parental home. It was further submitted that on account of such conduct, he had instituted Civil Case No. 18A/2019 seeking divorce, in which a decree of divorce was granted in his favour on 01.03.2024, wherein the Respondent herself admitted to having no objection to separation. The learned Family Court, however, upon due consideration of the pleadings and material available on record, allowed the Respondent’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded her maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month by the impugned order, against which the present revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has passed the impugned order on mere surmises and conjectures, without properly appreciating the evidence and 3 material available on record, and in utter disregard of the settled principles of law. The impugned order is erroneous, unsustainable in law, and has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. The learned Court below failed to appreciate the clear mandate of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., which disentitles a wife from claiming maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient cause. In the present case, the Respondent herself, in the divorce proceedings, admitted that she does not wish to live with the Applicant and had no objection to the grant of a decree of divorce, which was accordingly passed in favour of the Applicant. This categorical admission established the fact of desertion by the Respondent, and therefore, the learned Family Court was wholly unjustified in allowing maintenance despite the statutory bar under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. 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 Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (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, upon due consideration of the pleadings and evidence brought on record, has rightly held the respondent-wife entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The marriage between the Applicant and the Respondent was solemnized in the year 2017 according to traditional customs and rituals, and from the 4 said wedlock a child was born on 31.08.2018. The Respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court alleging harassment, neglect, and denial of maintenance during her pregnancy and after the birth of the child. The Applicant denied the allegations and placed reliance on the decree of divorce dated 01.03.2024 obtained in Civil Case No. 18A/2019; however, the learned Family Court, rightly held that notwithstanding the decree of divorce, the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and child subsists under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and accordingly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Respondent by the impugned order, which is just, proper, and in accordance with settled principles of law. 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