1 CGHC010234952025 026:CGHC:35594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 732 of 2025 Ashok Kumar Narmada S/o Mr. Chandraram Narmada Aged About 29 Years R/o C/o Shri Ganesh Narmada, Shanti Kunj, Awadhpuri, Sector 2, Near Mandir, Bhatagaon Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil And Dist. Raipur C.G. Pin 492001 ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Purnasha Narmada W/o Mr. Ashok Kumar Narmada Aged About 28 Years R/o Plot No. 46/2, Behind Shehnai Garden, Rohnipurpam, Daganiya, Raipur, Tehsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Amitabh Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the applicant/husband assailing the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. C.C. No.522/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application ;led by the non-applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the non-applicant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant was solemnized on 25.06.2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties. The non-applicant ;led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, Raipur alleging that after marriage the applicant and his family members started subjecting non-applicant to physical as well as mental cruelty. It was alleged that the applicant and his family members used to assault her, abuse her, demand money from her and ultimately drove her out from the matrimonial home. It was further pleaded that the applicant was employed in a private establishment and earning about Rs.40,000/- per month and was also receiving an annual income of approximately Rs.5,00,000/- from ancestral agricultural land. On the aforesaid allegations, the non-applicant sought maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the applicant. 3. The applicant entered appearance before the learned Family Court and ;led his detailed reply denying each and every allegation made in the maintenance application. It was speci;cally pleaded that non- applicant had not approached the Court with clean hands and had deliberately suppressed material facts. The applicant denied that either he or any of his family members had ever subjected non- applicant to cruelty, harassment or assault. It was further pleaded that non-applicant was residing separately from the applicant without any su?cient or justi;able reason. The applicant speci;cally stated that after marriage he was residing separately with non-applicant at Raipur and, therefore, the allegation regarding ill-treatment by his mother and other family members was wholly false and baseless. The applicant 3 further pleaded that non-applicant had herself ill-treated him, used abusive language, frequently insisted on eating outside food and avoided household responsibilities. It was also speci;cally pleaded that non-applicant is an enrolled Advocate and is practising the legal profession, but she deliberately concealed her income before the learned Family Court and also failed to ;le the a?davit of assets and liabilities in the format made mandatory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was further pleaded that the applicant was working in a private establishment and earning about Rs.23,000/- per month, however, during pendency of the proceedings he lost his employment and became jobless. Both the parties thereafter adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. During pendency of the proceedings before the learned Family Court, counselling proceedings were also conducted. During the counselling, non-applicant agreed to reside with the applicant at Raipur and, accordingly, both of them resided together for about ;ve months. However, thereafter non-applicant again left the matrimonial home without assigning any su?cient reason and started residing separately. 4. Upon completion of pleadings, the learned Family Court permitted both the parties to lead evidence. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel appearing on their behalf, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 21.04.2025, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance to the non-applicant from the date of passing of order. 4 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed grave illegality in passing the impugned order. It is contended that the learned Family Court has completely ignored the evidence available on record showing that non-applicant is an enrolled Advocate and is earning independently from her legal profession. Despite such admission having come in evidence, the learned Family Court erroneously held that non-applicant had no independent source of income and awarded maintenance in her favour. It is further submitted that non-applicant deliberately concealed her profession as well as her income and, therefore, did not approach the Court with clean hands. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that non-applicant did not comply with the mandatory directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, requiring ;ling of an a?davit disclosing assets, liabilities and sources of income. In absence of such mandatory disclosure, the maintenance proceedings themselves were liable to be rejected. However, the learned Family Court ignored the said legal requirement and proceeded to decide the application contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Family Court has also committed an error in awarding maintenance without recording any ;nding regarding the actual monthly income of the applicant. Though the evidence on record clearly demonstrates that during pendency of the proceedings the applicant became unemployed, the learned Family Court merely observed that the applicant used to earn salary earlier, without determining his actual present income. It is argued that in absence of any ;nding regarding the applicant's income, the award of 5 maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month is arbitrary and unsustainable. It is also argued that non-applicant is residing separately without any su?cient cause. The applicant never treated her with cruelty nor assaulted or abused her. The allegations regarding physical assault and harassment remained unsubstantiated and no complaint or contemporaneous document was produced in support thereof. Therefore, he prays that the present revision be allowed and the impugned order be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the documents appended with the revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has considered the pleadings of both the parties, their oral as well as documentary evidence and the entire material available on record. Upon appreciation of the evidence and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court recorded a ;nding that non-applicant had su?cient cause to reside separately from the applicant and that the applicant had neglected to maintain her. Accordingly, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the non-applicant. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order, the documents appended with 6 the revision and the ;ndings recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has meticulously appreciated the pleadings and evidence adduced by both the parties before arriving at the conclusion that the non-applicant is entitled to maintenance. The ;ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based upon proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material available on record. The applicant has failed to point out any jurisdictional error, patent illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned Family Court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 10.Accordingly, the revision petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 11.O?ce is directed to transmit a certi;ed copy of this order to the learned Family Court concerned for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal