1 2026:CGHC:13420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 386 of 2026 1 - Rahul Khoobchandani S/o Shri Prakash Khoobchandani Aged About 31 Years R/o Manish Traders Tilda Camp Distt.- Raipur Teh. Tilda Distt.- Raipur, C.G. ... applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Chandni Khoobchandani W/o Shri Rahul Khoobchandani Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Dr. Bagdi Nursing Home Natthani Bada Budhapara P/s City Kotwali Distt. Raipur Cg ... Respondent(s) For applicant(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 20.03.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Principle Judge, Family Court, Raipur, whereby the learned Family court has granted maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.04 13:18:53 +0530 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent/ wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court at Raipur (Chhattisgarh) claiming maintenance of Rs. 3,00,000/- per month, asserting that the marriage of the respondent was solemnized on 01.09.2022 in accordance with social customs and traditions. This was the second marriage for both the applicant and the respondent, as their previous marriages had already ended socially. The applicant had been deceived in her earlier marriage, and therefore she was reluctant to marry again but on the assurance given by the petitioner/ husband, she marry again. However, from the very first night of the marriage, the respondent was subjected to harassment by the applicant and his family members in the name of dowry and she was pressured to bring Rs. 5,00,000/- from her parental home. 3. The applicant, in his reply, has partly admitted paragraphs 02 and 03 of the application and denied the remaining averments, contending that both parties entered into a second marriage without any issue being born therefrom, and that the respondent concealed the fact that she had not legally divorced her first husband, thereby rendering the present marriage void. It is further stated that the marriage was performed without any dowry demand and all expenses, including jewellery worth Rs. 7–8 lakhs, were borne by the respondent’s family, which the applicant later took with her. The applicant denies all allegations of cruelty, dowry harassment, and unnatural acts, asserting that the applicant lived in the matrimonial home for about four months, participated in social functions happily, and thereafter left without sufficient cause due to dissatisfaction with his low income, falsely implicating him and his family in criminal cases. He further 3 submits that he is a simple accountant earning about Rs. 9,000/- per month, whereas the respondent/ wife is well-educated and earning through tuition, and that she has failed to produce any proof of divorce from her previous marriage despite claiming the same, thereby making false and baseless allegations only to claim maintenance. 4. After hearing the parties, learned Family Court has partly allowed the application filed by the respondent and granted Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance which is payable from the date of application i.e. 15.06.2023. The order is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the respondent made false allegations of cruelty and unnatural offences and cohabited with him only for a brief period of about 3–4 months. The Family Court, upon adjudication, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of application. It is also stated that the applicant is working as a Munim (Accountant) earning Rs. 9,000/- per month and has disclosed his income in compliance with the judgment of Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. The applicant alleges that the respondent has failed to produce any proof of divorce from her previous husband and has lodged false criminal cases under Sections 498A, 376, 377, 511/34 IPC only to harass him and his family. It is further contended that the respondent has been living separately since June 2021 without sufficient cause and, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance in view of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned judgment. 4 7. The primary object of the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to give social justice to women and children, and infirm parents, to prevent destitution and vagrancy. It provides a speedy remedy to those women, children and parents who are in distress and a helpless condition. In the matter of Anju Garg and Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC Online SC 1314 has held in para 9 that:- "9. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Ors. MANU/SC/0605/2014: (2015) 6 SCC 353 This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [MANU/SC/0420/1987 (1987) 1 SCC 624: 1987 SCC (Cri.) 237] the Court opined that. (SCC p. 631, para 16) 16. Proceedings Under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner. 8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) V Veeraswamy (K.) [MANU/SC/0719/1991. (1991) 2 SCC 375: 1991 SCC (Cri.) 442], while discussing about the basic purpose Under Section 125 of the Code, opined that: (SCC p. 378, para 3) 5 3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife. 9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v State of Gujarat (MANU/SC/1159/1996 (1996) 4 SCC 479 1996 SCC (Cri) 762), while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that (SCC p. 489, para 15) 15.... While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress. destitution and starvation. 10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [MANU/SC/8286/2007: (2008) 2 SCC 316: (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 (2008) 1 SCC (Cri.) 356), reiterating the legal position the Court held: (SCC p. 320, para 6) 6.... Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social justice and is specially 6 enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [MANU/SC/0067/1978: (1978) 4 SCC 70: 1978 SCC (Cri.) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben State Gujarat [Somabhai Bhatiya MANU/SC/0193/2005: (2005) 3 SCC 636: 2005 SCC (Cri.) 787). V of 11. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [ MANU/SC/0248/2013: (2014) 14 SCC 452: (2015) 1 SCC (Cri.) 407: (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346), it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children. 8. In the matter of "Rajnesh v. Neha", 2021 (2) SCC 324, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. In para 77 to 85, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment held that- 77. The objective of granting interim / permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded 7 78. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified, whether the applicant has any independent source of income, whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home, whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage, whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage: whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family, reasonable costs of litigation for a non- working wife [Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7: Refer to Vinny Paramvir Parmar v Paramvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112 (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290) 79. In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain ((2017) 15 SCC 801: (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. 80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court 8 must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications [Reema Salkan v Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12 SCC 303 (2018) 5 SCC (CIV) 596: (2019) 4 SCC (Cr) 339) 81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home 36 The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes Le maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort 82. Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration: (i) position and status of the parties. (i) reasonable wants of the claimant, (ii) if the applicant/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, (v) income from claimant's own earning or from any other source. 83. Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and/or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. 9 84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v Smt. Saroj Hegde (2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 (2007) 140 DLT 16] laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance: (SCC OnLine Del para 8) "1. Status of the parties. 2. Reasonable wants of the claimant 3. The independent income and property of the claimant. 4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain. 5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. 6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any. 7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant. 8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant. 9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed. 10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation 11. The amount awarded u/s 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/ 24 of the Act. 17." 85. Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove. certain additional factors would also be relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance payable." 9. On careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondent/wife has filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance of Rs. 3,00,000/- per month, alleging harassment and demand of dowry from the applicant/husband and his family. The applicant has denied these allegations, contending that the respondent 10 cohabited willingly for about 3-4 months, failed to produce proof of divorce from her earlier marriage, and has lodged false criminal complaints to harass him. The Family Court, after considering the evidence, granted maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of the application. It is also observed that the Family Court exercised its discretion under Section 125 CrPC, which mandates providing maintenance to a wife unable to maintain herself, while balancing the income of the husband, consistent with the principles laid down in Rajnesh (supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that maintenance should be granted considering the actual earning capacity and the standard of living of the parties. 10. The contention of the applicant that the respondent is living separately without sufficient cause does not absolve him from the statutory obligation to provide maintenance, as held in Smt. Anju Garg (supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that denial of maintenance can only arise if the wife is voluntarily staying away without reasonable cause. In the present case, evidence indicates that the respondent faced harassment and an alleged dowry demand, which constitutes sufficient cause for living separately. Considering the evidence with respect to the income of the applicant and the principle that the object of Section 125 is to prevent destitution, the learned Family Court's decision to grant Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance is just, reasonable, and in accordance with law. 11 11. In view of the facts and evidence available in the case, and also in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of "Smt. Anju Garg" (supra) and "Rajnesh" (supra), this Court do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court granting maintenance to the respondent/wife. Accordingly, the criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE sagrika