1 2025:CGHC:45850 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 207 of 2020 Vishal Nandeshwar S/o Bhavram Nandeshwar Aged About 33 Years R/o Plot No. 71, Behind Of Sarswati Shishu, Ramkunj Mahakaushal Colony, Adhartal, Jabalpur, Tahsil and District Jabalpur M. P., District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Ankita Nandeshwar W/o Vishal Nandeshwar Aged About 27 Years R/o B-13, Near Pandit Shivram School, Bhawnagar, Khamhardih, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Krishna Veer Singh S/o Dhakan Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Ram Krishna Nagar, Post Office Nandini, District Durg (M.P.) 3 - Jeetandra Singh S/o Shri Aged About 25 Years R/o Ram Krishna Nagar, Post Office Nandini, District Durg (M.P.) 4 - Shiksha Devi W/o Dhakan Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Ram Krishna Nagar, Post Office Nandini, District Durg (M.P.) 5 - Shushila Devi W/o Do Aged About 27 Years R/o Ram Krishna Nagar, Post Office Nandini, District Durg (M.P.) 6 - Dhakan Singh S/o Not Known R/o Ram Krishna Nagar, Post Office Nandini, District Durg (M.P.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : None RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 13.01.2020 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant/husband and respondent/ wife were married on 14.12.2015 at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, they began living together at the husband’s residence situated at Plot No. 71, behind Saraswati School, Ramakunj Mahakaushal Colony, Adhartal, Jabalpur. No children were born from the marriage. Initially, the marital life was peaceful, but after three to four months, the wife’s behavior changed drastically, leading to frequent quarrels. The husband, troubled by her conduct, began to doubt her character and informed her maternal relatives about the situation. However, instead of addressing the issue, her relatives supported her and, along with the wife, started harassing the husband. Despite enduring this cruelty, the husband continued to make efforts to maintain the marriage. In September 2017, the wife left the matrimonial home and began residing with her maternal uncle in Raipur, as her parents were deceased. Subsequently, the wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 20.09.2018 before the Family Court seeking maintenance. Prior to this, the husband had 3 filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights, which was allowed by the Family Court on 13.08.2018, directing the wife to return to the matrimonial home within one month. In compliance, the husband went to bring her back in September 2018, but found her house locked. Again, in October 2018, he went along with his father, but the wife refused to return. Thereafter, on 24.10.2018, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage. Despite these facts, the wife continued to live separately without sufficient cause and pursued the maintenance case solely to harass the husband. On 13.01.2020, the Family Court at Raipur allowed her application and directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, which has led to the present challenge. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 13.01.2020 passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous in law and facts, as it fails to consider the material evidence on record. The wife deliberately provided a false address and filed a false affidavit before the court, which amounts to perjury under Section 193 IPC and contempt of court. She is a well- educated woman holding a B.Com degree and is fully capable of earning and maintaining herself; therefore, as per settled law, she is not entitled to claim maintenance while willfully remaining unemployed. The allegation that her abortion on 27.10.2016 occurred due to physical assault by the husband is false and fabricated, as medical documents clearly show it was due to her 4 mental illness and not any act of the husband. The wife left the matrimonial home on her own free will, is allegedly involved in an adulterous relationship, and has consistently refused to return despite repeated efforts by the husband, including a petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was decided in his favor directing her to resume cohabitation. Living separately without sufficient cause disentitles her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Further, her claim that the husband earns Rs.30,000-40,000 per month from a clothing embroidery business is false, as the business has been closed for over a year, which is certified by the local Councillor. In reality, the husband is unemployed, has no source of income, and is undergoing treatment for chronic adjustment disorder with depression, requiring regular medication and family support. The learned Family Court failed to consider these crucial facts and the husband’s genuine efforts to maintain the marriage, making the order unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 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, after carefully considering the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances of the case, rightly allowed the wife’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. The Court observed that the wife, having been deserted by the husband, was living separately without any independent source of 5 income, while the husband, being financially capable, had a legal and moral obligation to maintain her. Despite the husband’s claims that he made efforts to bring his wife back, the evidence on record demonstrated that he failed to provide a safe and conducive environment for her to return. The Court correctly held that mere filing of a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not absolve the husband of his responsibility to maintain his wife. It also noted that the allegations made by the husband regarding the wife’s conduct were unsubstantiated and insufficient to deny her the right to maintenance. Considering the wife’s needs, the cost of living, and the financial capacity of the husband, the Family Court passed a reasoned and justified order, which is in accordance with law. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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