1 2025:CGHC:58610 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1463 of 2025 Smt. Sabhya Gupta W/o Shekhar Gupta Aged About 32 Years R/o Antriksh Golf Newton, J 1904, Noida, Sector-78, P.S.- Sector-113, Noida (U.P.) Presently Residing At Deviganj Road, Ambikapur Nagar, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Shekhar Gupta S/o Mithilesh Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o Antriksh Golf Newton, J 1904, Noida, Sector-78, P.S.- Sector-113, Noida (U.P.) Presently Residing At Dogra Regiment, C/o 99 Apo Umroi Malvai, Meghalya, Pin – 293103. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.12.2025 1. This criminal revision has been 昀椀led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and further be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 150/2023, "parties being Smt. Sabhya Gupta Vs. Shekhar Gupta" and further may kindly be pleased to grant suitable maintenance, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant and the respondent were married on 12.02.2018 at New Delhi according to Hindu rites. After marriage, the applicant began residing with the respondent and his family at Najafgarh, Delhi. The respondent is serving as a Major in the Indian Army and is presently posted in Meghalaya. At the time of marriage, the applicant’s family gave a car worth ₹10,00,000/-, gold ornaments, silver utensils and spent about ₹35–40 lakhs as per the demands of the respondent and his family. The applicant alleges that soon after marriage, the respondent and his family members repeatedly demanded money on various pretexts and pressured her to work and reside with her in-laws instead of joining the respondent at his place of posting. The applicant further states that she was not permitted to pursue her studies freely and was subjected to humiliation, harassment and even physical assault. During COVID-19, the respondent’s family demanded ₹35 lakhs for a 昀氀at booked at Noida, out of which only ₹10 lakhs could be paid due to 昀椀nancial constraints, leading to further harassment. 3. It is stated that despite her willingness to join the respondent at his place of posting, the respondent and his family prevented her from doing so. On 21.04.2022, when she came to Ambikapur for her brother’s marriage, she was not allowed to bring her personal 3 belongings or jewellery. After reaching Ambikapur, the respondent allegedly threatened her telephonically to not return to Delhi and pressurized her to give divorce. The respondent has 昀椀led a divorce case in Family Court Delhi, while the applicant has 昀椀led proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights and a domestic violence case, both pending. The applicant asserts that since April 2022, the respondent has paid only ₹5,000/- thrice in 2022 and thrice in 2023 and has also defaulted in paying the annual insurance premium of ₹27,000/-. The respondent is earning ₹1,80,000/- per month, has no dependent other than the applicant, and also derives rental income from his Delhi property. Therefore, she claimed ₹80,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent denied the allegations, stating that the applicant did not ful昀椀ll her matrimonial obligations, behaved disrespectfully towards him and his parents, and voluntarily left the matrimonial home without su昀케cient reason. Both parties adduced oral evidence before the Family Court. The learned Family Court, Ambikapur vide order dated 06.10.2025, dismissed the applicant’s petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition on the ground that the court below has failed to appreciate the evidence and judicial principles governing a wife’s right to maintenance. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and evidence on record and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is argued that the non-applicant has failed to produce any cogent or reliable evidence to show that the applicant is residing at 4 her parental home without su昀케cient cause, yet the Family Court erroneously relied on such unfounded assertions while rejecting the maintenance claim. It is submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the applicant was subjected to continuous mental cruelty by the non-applicant and his family members, and such cruelty, being a matter of emotional su昀昀ering and mental distress, cannot always be proved by direct evidence. The applicant’s uncontroverted testimony regarding persistent harassment, humiliation, 昀椀nancial pressure, and coercion was su昀케cient to establish that she had just and reasonable cause to reside separately, and therefore the bar under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. is not attracted. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court did not properly evaluate the evidence of the applicant and her witness and rejected the application based on conjectures rather than legal principles. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 5896/2024, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that the right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be interpreted liberally to protect deserted wives who su昀昀er mental cruelty and are compelled to leave the matrimonial home. It is contended that the present case squarely falls within the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, and therefore the applicant is entitled to be granted maintenance by setting aside the impugned order in the interest of justice. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly rejected the applicant’s claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court has correctly appreciated that the applicant failed to establish any su昀케cient or reasonable cause for living separately and that the allegations of cruelty, harassment and ill-treatment were not supported by any independent, reliable or consistent evidence. The testimony of the non-applicant, coupled with the surrounding circumstances, clearly indicated that the applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home without just cause, thereby attracting the bar contained in Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. The Family Court has meticulously assessed the statements of both parties and rightly concluded that the applicant did not discharge the burden of proving mental cruelty. The reliance placed by the applicant on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 5896/2024, is misplaced, as the facts of that case involved clear and proven instances of cruelty compelling the wife to live separately, whereas in the present case no such evidence has been brought on record. Consequently, the learned Family Court has passed a well-reasoned and justi昀椀ed order, fully in accordance with law. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 昀椀nding 6 recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in昀椀rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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