1 2025:CGHC:41501 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1373 of 2024 Chitrkant Patel S/o Shri Ghanshyam Patel Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Dhangaon, P.O. Putkapuri, Tehsil Pusaur, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Present Address Central Bank Of India, Deosundra Branch, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned As Branch Manager, Central Bank Of India, Transport Nagar, Branch Ge Road, Bhilai - 3, District Durg Chhattisgarh In The Impugned Order). ... Applicant versus Smt. Khushboo Nayak / Patel W/o Chitrkant Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o Through Shri R.P. Nayak, Plot No. 33, House No. 24/1064, Ravi Nagar, Raja Talab, P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 impugned by the judgment dated 07.10.2024, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 886/2019, may kindly be set- aside.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month and Rs.95,000/- annually for her studies, alleging harassment for dowry, repeated demands of Rs.5,00,000/-, physical abuse, and neglect, and further stated that she is presently residing with her grandparents at Raipur after being served with a divorce notice. The applicant-husband denied these allegations, contending that the respondent compelled him to sever ties with his family, misused his debit/credit cards for her family, and that his family is dependent upon him. It was further brought on record that the respondent is a qualified B.E. (Electronics & Telecommunication) and Law graduate, presently practicing as an advocate, and had herself admitted in DV Act proceedings that she is already receiving interim maintenance therein. The applicant produced documents to show her income and contradictory statements, including her transfer petition wherein she admitted working at Raipur and supporting her parents; however, his applications under Sections 91 and 104 Cr.P.C. for summoning relevant records and adducing further evidence were rejected by the Trial Court in a hasty manner, contrary to Section 14 of the Family Courts Act. Despite pendency and dismissal of parallel DV Act proceedings (MJC No.501/2019, decided on 30.11.2024), and without affording proper opportunity to the applicant to adduce 3 material evidence, the learned Family Court, vide impugned judgment dated 07.10.2024, allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing, which has aggrieved the applicant, hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in law and fact in awarding maintenance to the respondent without appreciating that she voluntarily left the matrimonial home and has been residing separately for the last five years without filing any proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, thereby establishing her intention to live apart on her own will. It is further submitted that the respondent was already awarded Rs.9,000/- per month as interim maintenance in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 32, ought to have been disclosed and adjusted in the present proceedings, but the learned Court failed to do so. The respondent herself has admitted in her transfer petition that she is employed in Raipur and maintains her parents, and further, she is well qualified with B.E. and LL.B. degrees and is practicing as an advocate, hence, it is not a case of an unemployed or dependent wife. Despite this, the Family Court, relying only on vague and omnibus statements without any cogent evidence of cruelty or harassment, has erroneously fastened liability upon the applicant. She further submits that the proceedings under the DV Act filed by the 4 respondent on identical allegations have already been dismissed, which has also been ignored. The impugned order granting maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of application, without considering the applicant’s limited income of about Rs.52,000/- at the relevant time and without due regard to his liabilities, is perverse, arbitrary, contrary to the settled principles under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and in clear violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore deserves to be set aside. 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 Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (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 Court, after assessing the allegations of dowry harassment, repeated monetary demands, physical abuse, neglect, and the admitted fact that the respondent was constrained to reside with her grandparents after being served with a divorce notice, correctly rejected the applicant’s bald denials. The learned Court duly appreciated that the respondent, though qualified, is not financially secure and cannot be compelled to maintain herself solely on the basis of her educational 5 qualifications. The Family Court also took into account the standard of living enjoyed during the subsistence of marriage, the financial capacity of the applicant-husband, and his legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife, while the mere pendency or dismissal of proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act did not absolve him of his duty under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The rejection of applications under Sections 91 and 104 Cr.P.C. was also justified, as the Family Court is not bound by strict rules of evidence in light of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, and the proceedings were conducted expeditiously in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 07.10.2024 directing the applicant to pay Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of filing is well-reasoned, legally sustainable. 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 be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan