1 2026:CGHC:11483 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 344 of 2026 Smt. Abhilasha Pandey W/o Nemichand Pandey Aged About 30 Years R/o Quarter No 6 B, Street No. - S.P.A. Zone 03, Sector-11 Khurshipar Bhilai, Police Station- Khursipar Bhilai, Tahsil And Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Nemichand Pandey S/o Late Govind Pandey Aged About 36 Years R/o Vishrampuri (Keshkal), Tehsil- Baderajpur, P.S.- Vishrampuri, Distt.- Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Adarsh Rajput, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.03.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant criminal revision and set-aside the order dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Family Judge Durg (C.G.) in the interest of justice. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant and the non-applicant are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking grant of maintenance before the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court. In the said application, the applicant submitted that during her matrimonial life she completed her M.Sc. in Mathematics and was preparing for competitive examinations with the knowledge and consent of the non-applicant. It was further submitted that in November, 2022, upon the insistence of the non- applicant, she went to Delhi along with her sister and the non- applicant’s friend for the purpose of arranging coaching, using money provided by the non-applicant. It was further alleged that despite being aware of her whereabouts, the non-applicant pressurized her father to lodge a missing report at Police Station Khamhardih, Raipur. Upon returning on 21.11.2022, the applicant approached the said police station and thereafter attempted to resume cohabitation with the non-applicant. However, the non- applicant and his family avoided her, did not permit her to meet her children and refused to keep her in the matrimonial home. The applicant also approached the Women’s Cell, Dhamtari seeking reunion, but the non-applicant still declined to take her back. The applicant stated that she has always been willing to reside with the non-applicant and has no independent source of income. It was further alleged that the non-applicant is financially sound and earns approximately Rs.3,00,000/- per month from his business and therefore, she prayed for grant of Rs.1,00,000/- per month as maintenance. 3 3. The learned Family Court registered the case as Misc. Cr. Case No. 658/2023. In the said proceedings, the non-applicant marked his appearance on 13.07.2023 and thereafter, on 26.07.2024, the learned Family Court passed an ex-parte order granting maintenance to the applicant at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. Against the said ex-parte order, the non-applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 1160/2025 before this Court. Vide order dated 12.12.2025, this Court set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter to the learned Family Court with a direction to decide the case afresh on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 4. Pursuant to the remand, the matter was reheard before the learned Family Court. The non-applicant filed his written statement denying all the allegations made against him and stated that on 11.11.2022 the applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home after taking her clothes, jewellery, valuables and documents. He further contended that he had financially supported her education, including B.Ed. and M.Sc. (Mathematics), and had always facilitated her studies. He denied the allegation that he had asked the applicant to go to Delhi with one Manish Yadav. It was further alleged that the applicant left the house after sending a message stating that she would not return and asking him to take care of the children. The non-applicant claimed that he made repeated phone calls to her and informed her father and brother and thereafter a missing report was lodged. According to him, after returning on 21.11.2022 and completing the police formalities, the applicant went to her parental home and later 4 again left with the same person, leading to another report dated 30.11.2022. It was further contended that the applicant deserted him voluntarily without any sufÏcient cause and, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C.. The non-applicant also deposed his statement before the Court on 27.01.2026. 5. After examining the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Family Court recorded a finding that the applicant had left the matrimonial home without informing her parents or the non- applicant and had left her two children in the custody of the non- applicant. The Court further observed that the applicant travelled to Delhi by flight along with one Manish Yadav and her sister Namrata and allegedly stayed there for about 10–11 days. On the basis of these circumstances, the learned Family Court concluded that the applicant had stayed with Manish Yadav for about 10–11 days and, therefore, held that she was disqualified from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. and accordingly rejected the application filed by the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even after remand the matter by this Court for fresh adjudication on merits, the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and has reiterated its earlier conclusions without satisfying the legal requirements under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. It is argued that once the earlier ex parte order was set aside, the entire matter stood reopened and the findings were required to be recorded strictly on the basis of legally admissible evidence, however, no 5 cogent or independent evidence was produced by the husband to establish the disqualification contemplated under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., namely that the applicant was living in adultery or had refused to live with the non-applicant without sufÏcient cause. Learned counsel further submits that mere allegation of leaving the matrimonial home or reliance upon an unproved mobile message cannot constitute proof of adultery or voluntary desertion, particularly when the alleged electronic message was not proved in accordance with law and was not supported by the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. It is further contended that the evidence on record demonstrates that the applicant was willing to resume cohabitation and had even approached the Women’s Cell seeking reunion, which itself negates the allegation of intentional desertion. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on conjectures and assumptions rather than strict proof, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice, especially when the applicant has no independent source of income while the non-applicant is financially capable of maintaining her. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has meticulously examined the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence brought on record and thereafter recorded its findings. The learned Family Court concerned has 6 observed that the applicant had admittedly left the matrimonial home on 11.11.2022 without informing either the non-applicant or her parents and had also left her two minor children in the custody of the non-applicant. The Court further took note of the circumstance that the applicant travelled to Delhi along with one Manish Yadav and her sister Namrata and remained there for about 10–11 days. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record and the surrounding circumstances, came to the conclusion that the conduct of the applicant in leaving the matrimonial home and staying away for a considerable period clearly indicated that she had voluntarily deserted the non-applicant without any sufÏcient cause. On the basis of such appreciation of evidence and the attendant circumstances, the learned Family Court held that the applicant had failed to establish her entitlement to maintenance and that the case falls within the disqualification contemplated under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., and accordingly rejected the application for grant of maintenance. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the findings recorded by the learned Family Court in the impugned order, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Family Court. The learned Court has appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and has arrived at its conclusion on the basis of the material available before it. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned Family Court warranting 7 interference. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal