1 2025:CGHC:29170 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 203 of 2020 Ritesh Kumar Taunk S/o Shri Jayanti Bhai Taunk Aged About 42 Years R/o Pili Building, Near Panasonic Show-Room, Ramddhin Marg, Ward No. 26, Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Ritu Taunk R/o 40, Block 4th, House Near Sai Mandir Shivanand Nagar, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Bishnu Muni, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Basant Dewangan, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Bishnu Muni, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that the impugned order dated 02/12/2019 may kindly be set aside/quashed.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent were married on 12.12.2009 as per Hindu customs at Fafadih, Raipur. The respondent alleged that shortly after the marriage, she was subjected to dowry-related harassment by the applicant and his family, which ultimately led her to leave the matrimonial home at Rajnandgaon and return to her parental home in Raipur on 05.04.2015. On 27.12.2018, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month, stating that she could not continue living in her matrimonial home due to the cruelty and harassment faced. She further claimed that in proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act initiated by the applicant, she had expressed willingness to resume cohabitation, but the applicant refused and instead offered a divorce in exchange for Rs. 1,50,000/-. In reply, the applicant denied the allegations, asserting that the respondent used to assist in his hardware shop and that their relationship was cordial in the beginning. He alleged that she used to quarrel unnecessarily with his family, threatened suicide, and left him after he was diagnosed with vocal cord cancer and underwent surgery in February 2015. He claimed that she left to avoid caring for him and later refused reconciliation, which compelled him to file for divorce. Despite acknowledging the applicant’s medical condition, the Family Court, after considering the evidence and pleadings, awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the 3 impugned order is contrary to the law, facts, and circumstances of the case. The Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent/ wife could not substantiate her allegations of cruelty against the applicant and his family members, which she claimed compelled her to leave the matrimonial home and seek maintenance after a delay of three years. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is suffering from vocal cord cancer and was abandoned by the respondent during a critical period of his life, leaving him in the care of his brothers and sisters-in-law. The applicant has no independent source of income and is bedridden, entirely dependent on his family for survival, whereas the respondent, despite being educated, has chosen to remain idle and claim maintenance, which appears to be an afterthought following the applicant’s initiation of divorce proceedings. The respondent has failed to discharge her moral and legal obligation of caring for her ailing husband and instead made false accusations solely to extract maintenance. Furthermore, she did not produce any credible evidence to establish the applicant’s earning capacity, nor did she lay any foundation to prove that he is financially capable of supporting her. The family Court failed to properly consider these crucial facts, and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. 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 First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.). 4 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 rightly appreciated the facts, pleadings, and evidence placed on record by both parties before passing a reasoned order awarding Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance to the respondent/wife. The Court took note of the serious allegations made by the wife regarding dowry-related harassment and cruelty, which led her to leave the matrimonial home and seek maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Despite the applicant’s claims that the wife had voluntarily deserted him and was unwilling to care for him during his illness, the Court rightly observed that the wife had, in fact, expressed readiness to resume cohabitation during the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but it was the applicant who refused and proposed a divorce instead. The timing of the wife’s departure from the matrimonial home, in conjunction with her willingness to reconcile and the applicant’s refusal, clearly indicated that she had sufficient cause to live separately. Considering her lack of independent income and the applicant’s responsibility as her husband, the Family Court justifiably exercised its discretion in awarding a reasonable sum for her maintenance, ensuring her right to live with dignity. 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 5 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 record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan