1 2026:CGHC:2784 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 374 of 2023 1. Smt. Prerna Tamboli W/o. Tejprakash Tamboli, Aged About 26 Years R/o Besides Shri Ram Temple, Purani Basti Kurmipara, Ward No. 18, Mahasamund, PS And Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2. Naman Tamboli S/o Tejprakash Tamboli Aged About 3 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother (Applicant No. -1) R/o Besides Shri Ram Temple, Purani Basti Kurmipara, Ward No. 18, Mahasamund, PS And Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Tejprakash Tamboli S/o. Girdhar Prasad Tamboli, Aged About 35 Years R/o. Nayakbandha, Road, Opposite Shyamji Ricemill Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Shop Address Girdhar Tamboli Pan Center Bus Stand Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and impugned order dated 06.03.2023, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G) passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 92/2022, in the case of "Smt. Prerna Tamboli V/s. Tejprakash Tamboli" may kindly be modified and the Application filed by Applicants for grant of maintenance U/s. 125 of CrPC may kindly be allowed in whole and the applicant no. 1/wife & applicant no. 2/son be provided/given sufÏcient amount of maintenance in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant No. 1 and the espondent are wife and husband, and their marriage was solemnized on 01.07.2017. Out of the said wedlock, one son was born on 28.05.2018, namely Naman Tamboli (Applicant No. 2), who is presently aged about 5 years. The Wife/Applicant No. 1, along with her minor son, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that after about six months of marriage, the family members of the respondent started demanding dowry. It was further averred that one of her brothers-in-law (husband’s brother) had been given a car in dowry, and thereafter the entire family started pressurizing her for additional dowry. Due to her poor family background, she was subjected to mental cruelty, insulted, and ill-treated by her father-in-law Girdhar Prasad Tamboli, mother-in- law Saraswati Tamboli, and brothers-in-law Vickey Tamboli and Guddu. It was further stated that her sister-in-law used to instigate her mother-in- 3 law over the telephone to raise demands for dowry, which the applicant No. 1 personally heard on several occasions. It was further stated that prior to the marriage, the respondent and his family had disclosed that they were engaged in wholesale business of paan, water pouches, and cold drinks, and that they owned 18 acres of land at Village Surpa, where a factory for manufacturing water purifier machines had been established. It was also stated that part of the said land was acquired by the Government, for which compensation of approximately Rs. 1 Crore 80 Lakhs was to be received. It was further stated that a tractor stands in the name of the father-in-law. It was further alleged that at the time of birth of the child, all medical expenses and hospital charges were borne by the parents of applicant No. 1 through a smart card. Even during the post-delivery period, when applicant No. 1 was residing at her parental home for rest, her in-laws continued to raise demands for dowry. It was further averred that during the Diwali festival, applicant No. 1 was taken to her matrimonial home, where her mother-in-law instructed the respondent not to sleep with her. Upon questioning the same, she was informed that unless the demand of dowry was fulfilled, the respondent would not share the room with her. It was further the case of applicant No. 1 that her cousin sister’s marriage was scheduled on 12.06.2019, and her parents came to take her for the said ceremony. When she asked for her jewellery, the respondent assured her that he would bring the jewellery later. However, her father-in-law and mother-in-law misbehaved with her parents. After about 2–3 months of the said incident, the respondent came to take applicant No. 1 back. Thereafter, her father advised the respondent to come along with elders from his family and society in view of the repeated harassment meted out to his daughter. The respondent refused to do so and thereafter came 2–3 4 times without any elder members, misbehaved, and left. Since 12.06.2019, Applicant No. 1 has been residing separately from the respondent. 4. It was further alleged that applicant No. 1 had earlier filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., registered as Criminal MJC No. 40/2021, which was withdrawn on 25.02.2022 pursuant to a compromise, as the parties resumed cohabitation from 08.12.2021. However, on 07.06.2022 at about 10:30 PM, the respondent and his family members again harassed applicant No. 1 and abetted her to commit suicide. With the help of her father and after dialing 112, she was rescued and since then has been residing at her parental home. Despite making her best efforts to save the matrimonial relationship, no stone was left unturned by her. Hence, applicant No. 1 filed the present application seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 10,000/- per month for her minor son, applicant No. 2. 5. The respondent/husband appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his objection, denying the allegations of dowry demand and cruelty, and contended that applicant No. 1 herself left the matrimonial home without any sufÏcient cause. It was further contended that the respondent had not deserted the applicant No. 1, and thus prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. The Applicant No. 1, namely Prerna Tamboli, examined herself as applicant Witness No. 1 and exhibited documents Ex. A/1 to Ex. A/12. The Respondent examined Tejprakash Tamboli as Non-Applicant Witness No. 1 and exhibited documents Ex. NA/1 to Ex. NA/5. 7. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, after 5 appreciating the evidence on record, partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and held that applicant No. 1 was residing separately without sufÏcient reason and therefore was not entitled to maintenance, whereas applicant No. 2, being a minor son, was held entitled to maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the the learned Family Court has committed material irregularity and illegality in passing the impugned order. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the admissions made by the respondent/husband, which were crucial and ought to have been taken into account while passing the impugned order. Learned Family Court has wrongly appreciated the documents filed by the Respondent/husband, as all such documents pertained to the earlier proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which were withdrawn on 25.02.2022. The learned Family Court completely overlooked the fresh and subsequent cause of action, which resulted in passing the impugned order. Learned Family Court, in a mechanical and cursory manner, dismissed the application filed by the Wife/Applicant No. 1, thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. He also submits that the absence of any concrete evidence, the learned Family Court erroneously presumed desertion on the part of the applicant No. 1, which is contrary to settled legal principles. The issue of desertion falls within the jurisdiction of a competent civil court and cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned Family Court wrongly drew an adverse inference merely on the ground that there was no police report or record of any societal meeting regarding dowry demand, thereby branding the allegations as false and forged. The learned court below failed to appreciate the settled law that lack of effective cross-examination on a material point itself amounts to 6 admission. He further submits that despite recording a finding that the applicant No. 1/wife has no independent means of livelihood, the learned Family Court dismissed her claim for maintenance, which is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate the surrounding circumstances which clearly establish that the respondent/husband raised vague and evasive allegations against the applicant No. 1 solely to evade his statutory liability to provide maintenance. The applicant No. 1 has been continuously subjected to cruelty and harassment since 2019 and, despite her best efforts to maintain the matrimonial relationship, the same could not continue due to the conduct of the respondent and his family members. He submits that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of conjectures and surmises and, therefore, cannot be sustained. The learned Family Court completely overlooked the inconsistent and self-contradictory stands taken by the respondent/husband. The core object and legislative intent of Section 125 Cr.P.C. have been ignored. Learned Family Court failed to apply the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein it has been categorically held that maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing of the application and not from the date of the order. All the evidence relied upon by the learned Family Court pertained to the period prior to the second cause of action, and no pleadings or defence were raised by the respondent/husband with respect to the subsequent events. Hence, the impugned order, being illegal, perverse, and contrary to law, is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submission made by learned counsel, for the applicants. 7 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to applicant No. 02, whereas the application for maintenance on behalf of applicant No. 01 was rejected on the ground that she was residing separately without sufÏcient reason. Therefore, the order passed by the concerned Family Court is just and proper. 12. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the 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. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal