1 2026:CGHC:329 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1542 of 2025 Priyank Sadhu S/o Sanjay Sadhu Aged About 33 Years Occupation Small Business (Soda Stall) R/o Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Near Petrol Pump, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Police Station- Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur C.G. .. Applicant(s) versus Smt. Susan W/o Priyank Sadhu, D/o Rajesh Edward, Aged About 31 Years R/o Hanuman Nagar, Mobile Shop Wali Gali, Ghotiya Road, Ward No. 26, Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Kawardha C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.01.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “In light of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Call for the record of Family Court, Kawardha and Set aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 and dismiss the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the Respondent/wife or in alternatively Reduce the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 maintenance to a nominal amount strictly in proportion to the actual income of the applicant or Pass any other order deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant/wife was solemnized on 10.11.2021 at Disciple Christ Church, Civil Lines, Bilaspur, in accordance with Christian customs, after which the non-applicant/wife resided at the applicant’s matrimonial home at Bilaspur only for a short period. According to the applicant, the non-applicant/wife lived peacefully merely for about one month after marriage, whereafter her conduct changed drastically, as she repeatedly insisted on staying at her parental home, frequently left the matrimonial house for long durations, refused to perform marital obligations, categorically declined to have marital relations on the pretext that she did not wish to become a mother and created mental agony for the applicant and his family by threatening suicide and false implication. It is further the case of the applicant that the non-applicant/wife neglected household responsibilities, refused to cook or contribute to family life and persistently pressurised the applicant to live separately from his parents, which he declined. During her stay at her parental house, she allegedly received medical treatment on 12.04.2022, wherefrom the applicant came to know that she was suffering from a pre-existing medical condition which had been concealed prior to marriage. On 10.06.2022, the non-applicant/wife voluntarily went to her parental home at Kawardha after attending her sister’s engagement ceremony, assuring that she would return 3 within 15 days, however, she never returned thereafter despite repeated efforts, requests and reconciliation attempts made by the applicant and his family over the last several years. The applicant categorically asserts that no cruelty, dowry demand or harassment was ever committed by him or his parents and that the allegation of demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- is wholly false and fabricated, as the marriage expenses were borne voluntarily by the non-applicant/wife’s family as per their own customs. It is further stated that the non-applicant/wife initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only after voluntarily deserting the matrimonial home and after the applicant filed a divorce petition before the Family Court, followed by criminal proceedings based on false, exaggerated and motivated allegations. The applicant belongs to a modest economic background and earns approximately Rs. 4,200/- per month by running a small soda stall, which is duly supported by income tax records, whereas the allegations that he owns multiple properties, agricultural land and earns Rs. 1,50,000/- per month are entirely baseless. On the contrary, the non-applicant/wife has falsely portrayed herself as unemployed and dependent despite being gainfully engaged as a beauty parlour assistant, tailoring worker and tutor for the last two years. Despite living separately by her own volition and without any reasonable cause, the non-applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming an exorbitant maintenance of Rs. 80,000/- per month, which is grossly disproportionate to the applicant’s actual income. 4 3. The learned Family Court concerned after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 09.10.2025, whereby the applicant/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3500/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant/wife from the date of filing of application. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the non-applicant/wife has voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home since June 2022 without any reasonable or sufÏcient cause and, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the non-applicant/wife refused to have physical relations immediately after one month of marriage, which amounts to cruelty and intentional withdrawal from cohabitation. She persistently pressurised the applicant to separate from his joint family, which is not a lawful or justified ground to leave the matrimonial home and her overall conduct clearly reflects refusal to perform marital duties and an intentional breakdown of marital life. The learned Family Court failed to consider the extremely meagre income of the applicant, who earns only about Rs. 4,200/- per month, yet erroneously awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- per month, which is wholly beyond his financial capacity. It is also submitted that the non-applicant/wife made an unjustified and exorbitant demand of Rs. 80,000/- per month without any legal, medical, social or security reason to live separately. The impugned judgment runs contrary to settled principles of law that a wife living separately without sufÏcient cause is not entitled to maintenance. 5 Further, the learned Family Court ignored material admissions of the non-applicant/wife made during cross-examination, wherein she categorically stated in paragraph 12 that she would not have filed the maintenance petition had the applicant not filed the divorce petition, and further admitted in paragraph 19 that she is a postgraduate, had worked as a computer operator, holds a DCA qualification, her qualifications have not diminished and that she is not working solely because she does not wish to. Thus, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and has arrived at an erroneous conclusion, rendering the impugned order illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹3500/- per month to the non-applicant/wife. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the 6 balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on higher side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance amount of Rs. 3500/- per month to the non-applicant/wife. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal