1 2026:CGHC:27412 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 827 of 2026 Rajesh Panjwani S/o Late Thakur Prasad Panjwani, Aged About 58 Years (Currently 60 Years) R/o Dr. Rajesh Panjwani Clinic, Baikunth Nagar, Near Yug Nirman School, Sharda Para Bhilai, P.S. Chhawni, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Sapna Panjwani W/o Rajesh Panjwani, Aged About 57 Years R/o House Number 823, Street No. 12 Shanti Nagar, Post Supela Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 0 3.07.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 26.05.2026 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.574/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has passed the order and grant of maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.03 17:08:35 +0530 2 maintenance from the applicant on 25.04.2023. The marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 22.11.1990 in accordance with Hindu customs and rites. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born, namely, a daughter, Shweta (now married), and a son, Karan (now married). After some time of the marriage, the cordial relationship between the applicant and the respondent became strained, and they started living separately. Due to continuous mental and physical harassment allegedly caused by the respondent and their son, the applicant was compelled to leave his own house and reside separately on 06.06.2012. The applicant filed a petition seeking a decree of divorce before the learned Family Court. Initially, the learned Family Court granted an ex parte decree of divorce in favour of the applicant. Thereafter, the respondent challenged the said decree, which was set aside, and the divorce petition was restored to its original file. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2025, granted a decree of divorce in favour of the applicant. The applicant and the respondent have been living separately since 2012. Both of their children are now married. The applicant's mother has also passed away. The respondent is presently residing with their son, Karan, in the applicant's house. Thereafter, both parties filed their respective affidavits in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. Copies of the affidavits filed by both parties are collectively annexed herewith as Annexure A/4 (Colly.). The applicant as well as the respondent filed their affidavits under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also examined their respective witnesses in the proceedings. The respondent filed an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 21.02.2025 seeking production of documents relating to the applicant. The applicant filed a reply to the said 3 application and produced the relevant documents as directed. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned orders is bad in law, thus liable to be set aside. He further submits that the learned Family Court has erred in law in awarding maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. The learned Family Court acted illegally and with material irregularity by ignoring the applicant's affidavit dated 15.05.2026, wherein the applicant specifically disclosed that his monthly income is only Rs. 5,000/-. Imposing a monthly maintenance liability of Rs. 20,000/- upon a person earning merely Rs. 5,000/- per month is arbitrary, unreasonable, and legally unsustainable. The respondent subjected the applicant to continuous mental and physical harassment, as a result of which the applicant was compelled to leave his own house, which stands registered in his name, and reside separately. The applicant and the respondent have been living separately since the year 2012. Despite their separation, the respondent filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only on 25.04.2023, after an inordinate delay of more than ten years. The said delay clearly indicates that the respondent was capable of maintaining herself during the intervening period and has instituted the present proceedings only with a view to harass the applicant. The respondent is residing with her son, who is now gainfully employed, and therefore she is not wholly dependent upon the applicant. In her affidavit, the respondent has herself stated that her son and mother-in-law are dependent upon her, which further demonstrates that she is maintaining the household and is not without means of support. The respondent is residing in the house 4 belonging to the applicant. The applicant has already instituted a civil suit in respect of the said property. The learned Family Court has further erred in law by ignoring the respondent's admission that the applicant had obtained an educational loan for their son, repaid the entire loan, and also provided a moped to their daughter. These admitted facts clearly establish that the applicant has never shirked his responsibilities and has always taken proper care of his children as well as the respondent to the best of his ability. It was solely on account of the cruelty inflicted by the respondent that the applicant was compelled to live separately from his family, including his children. The applicant is now a senior citizen with no one to look after him in his old age. In view of his monthly income of only Rs. 5,000/-, it is impossible for him to pay maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent while also meeting his own basic needs. 4. The respondent has filed the present maintenance proceedings solely with the intention of harassing the applicant. Despite the applicant making sincere efforts to preserve the matrimonial relationship, the respondent continued to treat him with cruelty, leaving the applicant with no option but to institute divorce proceedings. The learned Family Court ultimately granted a decree of divorce in favour of the applicant, observing that the parties had been living separately for a considerable period and that any attempt at reconciliation would be a futile exercise. The applicant had raised loans amounting to approximately Rs. 40,00,000/- for the education and marriages of his children. Consequently, he is heavily indebted and has only a meagre source of income. If the impugned maintenance amount is allowed to stand, the applicant will be left with no means to sustain himself. The applicant craves leave of this Court to urge such other and further grounds as may be necessary at the time of hearing. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the learned trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti