1 2026:CGHC:5827 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1291 of 2024 Smt. Vinita Pandey W/o Rakesh Pandey Aged About 52 Years R/o Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Presently R/o Ram Gopal Tiwari, Ward, No. 1, Pathakpara, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Rakesh Pandey S/o Jhumuklal Pandey R/o Champa, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02 /02/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.12/2013, whereby the application filed by the applicant / wife under Section 125 of 2 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month was dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision according to the applicant are that the applicant was married to the respondent on 02.06.1996 and after marriage resided in the matrimonial home, however, soon after marriage she was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty by the respondent, resulting in registration of an offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC in the year 1999, wherein the respondent was found guilty and fined, followed by proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act in 2007, and further a serious criminal case under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC in 2012 on the allegation that the respondent attempted to kill the applicant by administering poison mixed in sweets, thereafter, with a mala fide intention to harass and defame her, the respondent lodged a false complaint alleging adultery against the applicant and one Mr. G.P. Patel, from which the applicant was discharged on 14.08.2012, and the case against the said Mr. Patel was also dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2018, thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 29.01.2013 seeking maintenance for herself and her two minor children, whereunder maintenance was granted only to the children and the applicant’s claim was rejected vide order dated 15.12.2015, which rejection was upheld in revision on 28.09.2016 and thereafter by the High Court on 28.08.2023 in CRMP No.1293/2016, however, the Hon’ble 3 Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal Diary No. 49667/2023) vide order dated 03.01.2024 allowed the SLP and directed reconsideration of the issue of maintenance, despite the said directions, after transfer of the matter to the Family Court, Mungeli, the learned Family Court again rejected the applicant’s claim vide impugned order dated 09.10.2024 on grounds already disapproved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, ignoring that false allegations on the character of the wife and continuous cruelty constitute sufficient cause to live separately, and further ignoring that the respondent is a Government employee owning about 10 acres of agricultural land with earning more than Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum, whereas the applicant has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself. Hence, the present revision challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned order dated 09.10.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court gravely erred in law in holding that the applicant was residing separately without sufficient cause, ignoring the settled legal position that false and defamatory allegations of adultery against a wife strike at her dignity and character and constitute a valid and sufficient ground to live separately, as no wife can reasonably be expected to reside with a husband who has publicly accused her of unchastity. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant was discharged from the offence of adultery, and the allegations 4 against the alleged co-accused also stood dismissed, yet the learned Court relied upon the said false allegations to deny maintenance, which amounts to non-application of mind and perversity, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. He also submits that the learned Family Court ignored the mandatory and beneficial object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., and failed to consider the overwhelming evidence of continuous physical and mental cruelty, false criminal prosecutions and character assassination by the respondent, despite the fact that the applicant has no independent source of income while the respondent is a Government employee with substantial earnings, thereby illegally denying the applicant her rightful maintenance. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 1996. In 1999, the applicant lodged an FIR under Section 498-A/34 IPC against the respondent and his family members, which was subsequently compromised in the same year. Thereafter, the respondent lodged a complaint under Section 497 IPC alleging adultery against the applicant and one G.P. Patel, a superior officer of the respondent, based on an incident witnessed by several persons. Though the applicant was discharged from the said offence in 2012, the proceedings against G.P. Patel continued, and subsequent conduct of the applicant, including joint litigation with the said person, was brought on record. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the applicant lodged 5 multiple criminal cases against the respondent and his family members, and even witnesses, including cases under Sections 307 IPC, DV Act, Tonhi Pratadna Act, and other penal provisions, all of which ultimately resulted in acquittal or discharge. The respondent was even placed under suspension due to one such case, which suspension was later revoked, and the applicant’s challenge to the revocation before this Court was dismissed with cost. The learned Family Court took note of this consistent pattern of litigation and the absence of any conviction against the respondent. 5. He also contended that the learned Family Court further recorded a finding that the applicant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, shifted residence along with the children without the knowledge or consent of the respondent, and independently obtained transfer certificates of the children, thereby establishing desertion on her part. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, including photographs and video material, the Family Court concluded that the applicant failed to establish sufficient cause for separate residence and, consequently, failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 125 Cr.P.C., leading to dismissal of her claim for maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the present revision arises out of the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Mungeli, whereby the 6 application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance was dismissed. The applicant had initially approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, seeking maintenance for herself and her children, which came to be rejected vide order dated 15.12.2015 on the ground of adultery. The said order was affirmed successively by the Additional Sessions Judge on 28.09.2016 and by the High Court in CRMP No. 1293/2016 vide order dated 28.08.2023. He further submits that being aggrieved by the same, the applicant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Criminal Appeal No. 31/2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.01.2024, remanding the matter for fresh consideration in light of the fact that the applicant had been discharged from the criminal charge of adultery. Pursuant to the remand, the matter stood transferred to the Family Court, Mungeli, where additional evidence was permitted, however, it is relevant to note that the applicant herself did not enter the witness box and examined only her son in support of her case. He also submits that upon reconsideration, the learned Family Court, after appreciating the entire material on record, again dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. vide the impugned order dated 09.10.2024, holding that the applicant was living separately without sufficient cause and that the evidence adduced by the respondent established continued adulterous conduct, disentitling the applicant from maintenance. The learned Family Court took note of the overall conduct of the 7 applicant and the surrounding circumstances, rather than resting its conclusion merely on the earlier criminal proceedings. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the impugned order as well as the material placed on record. The scope of interference in revision is limited. Unless the findings recorded by the Family Court are perverse, illegal or suffer from material irregularity, this Court would not be justified in reappreciating the evidence as a court of appeal. 8. Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. clearly provides that a wife shall not be entitled to maintenance if she is living in adultery or if, without sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband. The expression “sufficient reason” has to be examined in the backdrop of the overall conduct of the parties and the attendant circumstances. The Family Court has undertaken a detailed analysis of the evidence and has recorded a finding of fact that the applicant failed to prove continuous cruelty or forcible desertion by the respondent. On the contrary, the evidence shows that the applicant herself left the matrimonial home, obtained transfer certificates of the children, shifted residence, and continued to reside separately by choice. 9. Significantly, the Family Court has also taken note of the fact that the applicant has lodged at least four criminal cases against the respondent and his relatives over the years, most of which did not result in any conviction. This consistent pattern of litigation, coupled with the admitted fact that the parties continued to live 8 together till about the year 2012 despite earlier disputes, clearly indicates that the applicant was not genuinely desirous of continuing the matrimonial relationship. Filing repeated criminal cases, even after resumption of cohabitation, is a relevant circumstance which reflects the intention of the applicant to sever marital ties rather than to preserve them. 10. The contention that mere allegation of adultery constitutes sufficient cause to live separately cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition. Each case must turn on its own facts. In the present case, the Family Court has recorded that the applicant herself did not step into the witness box after remand to rebut the allegations and that the evidence adduced by the respondent, including surrounding circumstances, remained substantially unrebutted. These are findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence and do not warrant interference in revision. 11. The argument regarding the financial capacity of the respondent, though relevant, becomes secondary once the statutory disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. is attracted. Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not an automatic entitlement, it is conditioned upon the wife establishing that she is living separately for a just and sufficient cause. The Family Court has rightly held that such cause has not been proved in the present case. 12. This Court finds that the impugned order dated 09.10.2024 is reasoned, well-considered and in consonance with the settled 9 principles governing Section 125 Cr.P.C. The findings recorded therein are neither perverse nor contrary to law. The applicant has failed to make out any ground for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 13. Consequently, the criminal revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Mungeli is affirmed. No order as to costs. 14. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil