1 2026:CGHC:2746 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 87 of 2026 Shrimati Radhika Pillai W/o Prashant Pillai, Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 3c, Street 76, Sector- 6, Bhilai District- Durg, Chhattisgarh … applicant versus Prashant Pillai S/o K.G. Raghunathan Pillai, Aged About 38 Years Presently Residing At 502/a Ashapura Park, Sector- 19, Airoli, Navi Mumbai District- Thane Maharashtra - 400708 and As Per The Court Case Monitoring System Residing At House No. Sector- 19, Airoli, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra ... respondent For applicant : Mr. Ashwin Panickar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.1042/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the maintenance application of the applicant/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 30.08.2021, the applicant was married to the respondent as per Hindu customs and rituals in Bhilai, District Durg, and subsequently shifted to her matrimonial home in Mumbai to reside with the respondent and his parents. After marriage, the applicant came to know that the respondent consumed alcohol and other intoxicants, and his parents misbehaved with her. In January 2023, the applicant went to her parental home in Durg to attend her father’s death PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.20 10:23:44 +0530 2 anniversary. During this time, the respondent left for Dubai without informing her, and his parents instructed her not to return to Mumbai. On 14.08.2023, the applicant filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Learned Family Court, Durg. Both the applicant and the respondent submitted affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, which are annexed as Annexure A-4 (Colly.). The applicant submitted her written arguments, highlighting inconsistencies in the respondent’s income statements, the circumstances created by the respondent and his parents denying her access to her matrimonial home, and multiple legal proceedings, namely RCC/14186/2024 under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC, and Miscellaneous Criminal Case 788/2023 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, dismissed the maintenance application, holding that the applicant had no valid reason to stay away from the respondent and was capable of earning for her upkeep. The applicant, being aggrieved by the findings of the Learned Family Court, prefers the instant revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the Learned Family Court erred in fact and law by holding that the applicant had no valid reason to reside separately from the respondent. The filing of FIR No. 45 of 2023 against the respondent and his family for offences of cruelty is prima facie ground for the applicant to live separately (Annexure A-6). The Court ignored the respondent’s admissions in his Order 18 Rule 4 CPC affidavit and cross-examination, wherein he stated that he and his parents disapproved of the applicant going out for movies or dining, and that he never took the applicant out post-marriage, thereby restricting her social interaction, autonomy, and dignity. Further, the impugned order contravenes the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh 3 v. Neha & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020, which mandates full disclosure of financial affidavits and bank statements. The respondent misled the Learned Family Court by claiming his parents were retired, whereas he is actively running their business, as evident from the bank statements and business profile of Shasta Engineering Works (Annexure A-7). The Learned Family Court adopted a hyper-technical approach, contrary to the settled principle that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and must be interpreted liberally in favour of the wife. Moreover, although the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed on 22.08.2025, the respondent has neither resumed cohabitation nor provided a safe and dignified environment for the applicant to return, leaving the decree effective only on paper, particularly in view of the pending criminal proceedings for cruelty. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order, pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Let the certified copy of the this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti