1 2026:CGHC:5041 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 404 of 2024 Smt. Chhavi Patle W/o Manish Choudhary Aged About 39 Years Resident Of - M.I.G.C 454 Padmanabhpur, Near Vishwadeep School, Durg, Tehsil And Dist. Durg, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Manish Choudhary S/o Dr. Gunesh Singh Choudhary Aged About 40 Years Resident Of House No. 87, Mahesh Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And Dist. Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Siddhant Rathod, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Jha, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Siddhant Rathod, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 01.03.2024, in the interest of justice.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant and non applicant were married on 29.11.2011 in rajnandgaon in front of marriage ofÏcer under special marriage act and thereafter both got married dated 04.12.2011 as per the Hindu rites and rituals in Rajnandgaon (C.G.) The applicant and non-applicant both are educated and had done MCA and Engineering (Software) respectively. Before marriage, the non-applicant was working and got Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakhs) per annum in Bangalore and the applicant was working and got Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rs. Nine Lakhs) per annum in Bangalore. The Non-applicant’s father is doctor (Pathology) by profession and have self owned Pathology lab in Rajnandgaon. The father of the non- applicant is having around 15 acre land situated in Gram Bhanpur, Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh) and from the same land and its allied activities is monitor and controlled by Non-applicant from where they are generating Rs, 4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lakhs Only). The applicant and non-applicant went to Bangalore after their marriage and since marriage the Non-applicant was stoic and the non- applicant was stoic also towards sexual relations. The applicant made all efforts to bring a child but the stoic nature of the non- applicant was the reason due to which the applicant fails every time. Even the applicant had made a proposal to go for In-vitro fertilization (IVF) but still the non-applicant was not in a mood to go with the same resulting into acute physical and mental torture to applicant. The non-applicant was the sole child of their parents and always insist the applicant to come and live with them in Rajnandgaon and even some time pressurize heavily to come and 3 do business in Rajnandgaon only. The dispute to live with the parents of the Non-applicant was the reason due to which the applicant in July 2016 came to Rajnandgaon and started living with the parents of the non-applicant and also continued her work from home. The applicant was not present at her base branch because the non-applicant wanted that the applicant/ wife should live with his parent was the reason due to which the applicant terminated/resigned from the job. The applicant wanted to do some business and the same idea had been cultivated by non-applicant/ husband but due to the torture of the non-applicant, the applicant never started her business. The applicant become dependent on non-applicant and his family towards everything which is required to her in day to day routine. This is the cogent reason due to which non-applicant and his family member started torturing the applicant. The non-applicant in the year 2017 took the 40 acre agricultural land in lease in tappa, Dongargarh and started farming and after that the non-applicant take the land government land in badagaon, Dongargarh for the farming purpose. The non-applicant started farming in above mentioned agricultural land and started getting Rs. 20,00,000/- per annum. It is pertinent to mention that the non-applicant also into the business of supplying kit of Kangen Water from where he is getting Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum. The non- applicant also into the business of fertilizers, Seeds and agricultural equipment business from where he gets 7,00,000/- per annum. He applicant also gets 4,00,000/- per annum from the paternal property situated in Bhanpur, Balaghat. The non-applicant in total getting 4 around Rs, 34,00,000/- per annum from agriculture business and its allied activities. The applicant was also a working women and due to the pressure created by non-applicant, she relocated to Rajnandgaon and after a period of few months she became unemployed and become dependent on non-applicant for every small things which is required for day to day activities. Whenever the applicant demand money, the non-applicant shows indecent behavior towards the applicant and due to which the applicant moved away from Rajnandgaon on 02.02.2018 to her parental house. The applicant and non-applicant reconcile the matter dated 15.08.2018 and as a result the applicant came to her husband house situated in Rajnandgaon. The above mentioned matter again persist due to which the applicant finally in the month of September 2019 came to her parental house and since then the non-applicant is maintaining her wife nor residing with her. The applicant and non- applicant were residing in Bangalore till July 2016, they purchased the Honda Jazz Car and other House hold appliances like A.C, Refrigerator, Washing Machine, Dish washer, Television from their self earned money and they had invested around Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs Fifteen Lakhs Only) to purchase the same. The above mentioned material is still with the non-applicant and the non- applicant is also having the Stree dhan of the applicant consist of Gold Necklace (Approx 25 Gram), Gold Bengalese (Approx 20 Gram), Gold earrings, Gold Rings etc. ) He is having the intention to take divorce from the applicant and in lieu of same the non- applicant on Feb. 2020 sent the afÏdavit in whatsapp. The activities 5 show case by the non-applicant clearly indicate that he wants to take the divorce from the applicant but still the applicant wants to live with her husband. The applicant after witnessing such activities from non- applicant and his family members filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) dated 05.03. 2022 and demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from the non- applicant as a maintenance amount. 4. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court has passed an order dated 01.03.2024, whereby rejected the application of the applicant on the ground that she has failed to prove her case further without any sufÏcient cause she is residing separately, therefore she is not entitled for maintenance amount. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the learned Family Court is perverse both on facts and in law, as the Court failed to properly appreciate the admissions of the non-applicant, documentary evidence, and settled principles governing maintenance. The non-applicant admitted in cross-examination that he had sent a divorce afÏdavit via WhatsApp and had earlier instituted and later withdrawn divorce proceedings, clearly reflecting his intention to desert and mentally harass the applicant, yet no adverse inference was drawn. The Court ignored that domestic violence stood prima facie established and that the applicant was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to cruelty and financial neglect. Despite clear admissions that 6 the applicant has had no source of income since 2016 and became dependent after being forced to resign and relocate, the Family Court wrongly presumed that a well-educated wife cannot be unable to maintain herself, which is contrary to settled law. The substantial income of the non-applicant from agriculture, business, and bank transactions (around Rs. 34 lakhs per annum) and his own Income Tax Returns were not properly considered, nor the contradiction between his afÏdavit and financial records. The Court selectively relied on inapplicable precedents and disregarded binding principles that maintenance must ensure a standard of living similar to that of the husband and that mere educational qualification or past employment of the wife is not a ground to deny maintenance. The findings that cruelty and financial deprivation were not proved are based on misreading of evidence, ignoring admissions in cross-examination and applying an erroneous burden of proof in a summary proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of material evidence, misapplication of law, and grave miscarriage of justice, warranting interference in revision. 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 after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rightly passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7 8. Considering the evidence and overall circumstances of the case, the Family Court has rightly held that the applicant failed to establish the essential prerequisites for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been observed that the wife is residing separately from her husband without any justifiable or sufÏcient cause. A fundamental condition for claiming maintenance, that the husband has given cause or compelled the wife to live separately, has not been satisfactorily proved by the applicant. In the absence of such proof, the applicant cannot be deemed entitled to maintenance. The Family Court concerned, upon a thorough examination of the pleadings and the evidence on record, has arrived at a well-reasoned, lawful, and justified conclusion in dismissing the claim for maintenance. 9. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal