1 2025:CGHC:25095 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 150 of 2018 Sagar Jadhav S/o Shri Avinash Jadhav Aged About 41 Years R/o Flat No. 301, III Floor, Virgo Heights, Plot No. 388, Near Mini Punjab Restaurant, Road No. 16, Bandra East, Mumbai (Maharastra) (No Other Qatar Residence Address/Qatar Office Address Since Unemployed) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Apeksha Jadhav W/o Sagar Jadhav, Aged About 37 Years R/o Golechha Residency, Shankar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2. Parth Jadhav S/o Sagar Jadhav Aged About 7 Years Through Guardian Smt. Apeksha Jadhav, W/o Sagar Jadhav, Aged About 37 Years R/o Golechha Residency, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel, appearing for Respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.18 19:05:38 +0530 2 following prayer: “ It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order judgment dated 09.01.2018 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 550/2014 between Smt. Apeksha Jadhav & Another Vs. Sagar Jadhav.” 3. Brief Facts of the case are that the respondents had filed an application seeking maintenance from the present applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The case was registered as M.J.C. No. 550/2014. The applicant herein filed a reply to the said application, denying the submissions made by the respondents. At the relevant time, when the applicant was employed and earning a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month, he admitted the same in his reply, in all fairness. On that basis, the learned Court trial Court was pleased to award interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month, which the applicant has been paying sincerely. Subsequently, disturbances in the matrimonial relationship began to adversely affect the applicant. Respondent No.1 ensured that the applicant’s employer became aware of the ongoing issues, due to which the applicant was compelled to resign. His resignation was accepted by the employer. The applicant is also annexing relevant pages of his passport to demonstrate that he has not been in Qatar since 2016, which implies that had he still been employed, he would have had to be present in Qatar to fulfill his job 3 duties. Since 31.10.2016, the applicant has been unemployed and is finding it extremely difficult to even meet his personal expenses. However, with great difficulty, he has continued paying Rs. 15,000/- as interim maintenance. The applicant was also compelled to take a personal loan against his LIC Policy. The applicant is undergoing severe financial hardship due to unemployment. He did not voluntarily leave his job but was forced to resign under the prevailing circumstances. The applicant takes no satisfaction in enduring such hardship and jeopardizing his career and future. Moreover, the applicant has not made any false claims before the learned trial Court. He candidly admitted his previous income of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month while he was employed, which demonstrates his bona fides and confirms that he is not trying to avoid his obligation to pay maintenance on false grounds. As of today, the applicant is still unemployed and is making continuous efforts to secure suitable employment. Despite submitting numerous job applications, he has yet to receive a favorable response. In fact, some of his job applications have been rejected. 4. The respondent No.1 is also highly qualified, holding an M.A. degree in History, and is capable of obtaining employment. She is also seen in a photograph wearing the identity card of MM Junior School, Raipur, which suggests that she was employed. However, the applicant was not in a position to produce concrete documents of her employment. It was her responsibility to prove before the learned trial Court that she is incapable of maintaining herself. It is also an admitted fact that she was employed when she was residing 4 in Mumbai. In addition to the interim maintenance order, the learned trial Court also passed an order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, awarding litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- and pendilite maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- for each hearing, without considering the fact that interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- was already being paid by the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist submits that the learned trial Court erred in failing to appreciate that the applicant is currently unemployed, and therefore, awarding maintenance without considering his present financial capacity is bad in law. He also submits that the learned trial Court erred in not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that we are living in an era of gender equality, where the Constitution mandates equal treatment irrespective of sex, caste, or creed. An unemployed husband cannot be treated differently from an unemployed wife. The Court failed to recognize that, in the peculiar circumstances where the applicant is unemployed, he cannot be expected to beg or borrow to maintain his wife. He further submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent (wife) is well-educated and capable of maintaining herself. The amount of maintenance was fixed without any evidence regarding the applicant’s income and without conducting any proper inquiry into the applicant’s financial status. For the reasons stated above, among others, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- 5 applicants opposes the prayer made by 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.) in M.J.C. No. 550/2014. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the non -applicants cannot be said to be shockingly high warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek