1 CGHC010010642025 2026:CGHC:32989 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 50 of 2025 1 - Smt. Neelam Tiwari W/o Shri Rajesh Tiwari Aged About 39 Years R/o C/o Smt. Chhaya Bajpayee, Street-1, Sector-2, Near Kali Temple, Professor Colony Raipur, Police Station-Purani Basti Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tomendra Tiwari Aged About 17 Years, Through Next Friend Mother Smt. Neelam Tiwari, R/o C/o Smt. Chhaya Bajpayee, Street-1, Sector-2, Near Kali Temple, Professor Colony Raipur, Police Station-Purani Basti Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Bhargavi Tiwari D/o Rajesh Tiwari Aged About 11 Years Through Next Friend Mother Smt. Neelam Tiwari, R/o C/o Smt. Chhaya Bajpayee, Street-1, Sector-2, Near Kali Temple, Professor Colony Raipur, Police Station-Purani Basti Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus Rajesh Tiwari S/o Shri Bachchulal Tiwari Aged About 45 Years R/o Tiranga Chowk, Beside Singhi Shop, Amleshwar, Police Station- Amleshwar (Wrongly Mention As Aleshwar In The Cause Title Of Order Sheet) Tahsil Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be modify N pleased to allow this revision and [set aside the impugned order dated order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal M.C.C. No. 375/2019 in the case titled as "Smt. Neelam Tiwari & others Vs. Rajesh Tiwari" (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 06.02.1998 at Pithora, District Mahasamund, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, petitioner No.2 (son) and petitioner No.3 (daughter) were born. The case of the petitioners is that after the marriage, petitioner No.1 resided with the respondent and initially their matrimonial life was cordial. It is alleged that after some years, particularly after the respondent’s retirement from the Army in May, 2011 and his subsequent employment as an Arms Guard with Punjab National Bank, his behaviour towards petitioner No.1 changed and he started subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty, frequently consuming alcohol, abusing and harassing her, and pressurizing her to agree to a divorce. It was further alleged that the respondent ultimately drove petitioner No.1 out of the matrimonial home, compelling her to reside at her parental house along with petitioner No.3, while petitioner No.2 remained with the respondent. The petitioners contended that petitioner No.1 is a 3 housewife having no independent source of income, whereas the respondent is receiving pension from his military service and is also earning a salary from his employment, besides owning movable and immovable assets. On these allegations, the petitioners filed an application seeking maintenance from the respondent. The respondent filed his reply denying the allegations and contended that it was petitioner No.1 who used to create disputes on trivial issues and voluntarily left the matrimonial home. He further asserted that petitioner No.1 is educated and capable of earning, and disputed the income attributed to him by the petitioners. After recording the evidence of the parties and considering the material available on record, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 08.11.2024 passed in Criminal M.C.C. No. 375/2019, partly allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner No.3 from the date of filing of the application, while declining the remaining reliefs sought by the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to law and the evidence available on record and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Family Court erred in rejecting the claim of petitioner No.1 for maintenance primarily on the basis of certain photographs allegedly found in her Google account and treated the same as constituting cruelty towards the respondent. He contends that the learned Family Court failed to 4 appreciate that the said photographs neither establish any immoral conduct nor can they be termed obscene or vulgar in nature. It is further submitted that the photographs were merely stored in the Google Photos backup account of petitioner No.1 and were never circulated or shared on any social media platform. He also submits that the electronic evidence relied upon by the respondent was not duly proved in accordance with law, inasmuch as the witness who furnished the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act admitted in his cross-examination that essential particulars relating to the device, IMEI number, SIM details and other technical information were not mentioned therein, thereby rendering the said evidence doubtful. It is further contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that petitioner No.1 had consistently denied any extra-marital relationship and that there was no reliable evidence on record to substantiate such allegations. Learned counsel submits that even assuming the allegations of cruelty to be true, cruelty by itself is not a statutory ground for denial of maintenance to a wife who is otherwise unable to maintain herself. It is argued that the learned Family Court misdirected itself in law by treating the alleged conduct of petitioner No.1 as a complete bar to her claim for maintenance. Therefore, it is submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court are unsustainable in law and the petitioners are entitled to appropriate interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5 5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them, and the entire material available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order dated 08.11.2024. The learned Family Court has meticulously examined the rival contentions of the parties, the circumstances under which the parties started residing separately, and the evidence pertaining to the conduct, financial status and entitlement of the petitioners. The Court has also considered the evidence led by the respondent regarding the conduct of petitioner No.1 and, upon appreciation of the entire material available on record, arrived at a finding that petitioner No.1 was not entitled to maintenance. At the same time, the learned Family Court duly considered the status and needs of petitioner No.3 and, finding her entitled to maintenance, partly allowed the application by directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner No.3 from the date of filing of the application. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based upon a proper appreciation of the evidence and documents placed on record and are supported by cogent and plausible reasons. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 6 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan