1 2025:CGHC:57333 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1168 of 2022 Rahul Tiwari S/o Jagdish Tiwari, Aged About 31 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Saini Colony, Ranjhi, Jabalpur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Jabalpur (M.P.) ... Applicant versus Vandana Mishra Divorcee W/o Rahul Tiwari, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Chanwaridand, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea (Now District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ramsevak Soni, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. This criminal revision has been 昀椀led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 18.10.2022, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 26.11.2015 according to Hindu RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 rites, after which the respondent joined the applicant at his matrimonial home. On 02.04.2016 she left for her parental house and, despite the applicant’s visit on 21.04.2016 to bring her back, she refused to return and has since remained there. The respondent thereafter 昀椀led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Manendragarh, registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 70/2016, which was dismissed on 13.06.2017 on the 昀椀nding that she was residing separately without su昀케cient cause, attracting Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. Her revision petition (Criminal Revision No. 682/2017) was later withdrawn on 07.03.2022. Meanwhile, she again instituted a fresh application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 14.06.2021. The applicant, in his reply, objected to its maintainability on the ground that an earlier identical application had already been 昀椀nally decided. However, after hearing both sides, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 18.10.2022, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month from the date of the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 18.10.2022 is bad in law, arbitrary, and perverse, as the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that an earlier application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 昀椀led by the respondent had already been dismissed on 13.06.2017 on the 昀椀nding that she was residing separately without any su昀케cient cause, and the said order attained 昀椀nality after the respondent 3 withdrew her revision petition (Criminal Revision No. 682/2017) on 07.03.2022. It is urged that the respondent falsely deposed before the Family Court that she had not withdrawn the revision, and the Court erred in relying on her inconsistent statements. Counsel further submits that the parties’ marriage had already been dissolved by judgment and decree dated 06.03.2019 in Civil Suit No. 45-A/2018 昀椀led by the respondent herself, and therefore she cannot claim maintenance as a divorced wife who is living separately without reasonable cause. It is argued that the Family Court committed a grave legal error in virtually reversing its earlier 昀椀ndings recorded in the order dated 13.06.2017, which is impermissible in law, and that even otherwise, the bene昀椀ts under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not a matter of right. It is lastly urged that the maintenance amount awarded is excessive and unsustainable, warranting setting aside of the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rightly held that the respondent was entitled to maintenance and correctly directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month. The Court duly noted that though an earlier application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. had been dismissed in 2017, the subsequent application 昀椀led on 14.06.2021 was maintainable in view of the continuous subsistence of the parties’ marital relationship at the relevant time and the ongoing neglect and refusal by the applicant to maintain his wife. The Court further found that 4 the mere fact of the respondent residing at her parental home did not, in the facts demonstrated, establish a voluntary withdrawal from matrimonial obligations, particularly when the applicant failed to show bona 昀椀de e昀昀orts to resume cohabitation or to provide 昀椀nancial support. The Court, therefore, on a proper appreciation of material on record and in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C., justi昀椀ably awarded maintenance. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 昀椀nding 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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