1 CGHC010114652026 2026:CGHC:37109 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 419 of 2026 1 - Smt. Prashansha Agrawal W/o Arvind Modi Aged About 37 Years R/o Block No. 09, Flat No. 07, Near Water Tank, Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, Post- Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Aparajita Aged About 4 Years Minor Represented Through Their Natural Guardian And Mother Applicant No. 01, R/o Block No. 09, Flat No. 07, Near Water Tank, Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, Post- Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Antanjit Aged About 2 Years Minor Represented Through Their Natural Guardian And Mother Applicant No. 01, R/o Block No. 09, Flat No. 07, Near Water Tank, Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, Post- Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Arvind Kumar Modi S/o Jayaprakash Aged About 39 Years R/o- Block-E, Quarter No. E-79, Mahan Colony, Hindalco Industries Private Limited, Bargawan, District- Singrauli (Madhya Pradesh) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate appears though V.C. For Respondent : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19 /08/2026 1. The applicants have >led this criminal revision against the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 477/2018, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 whereby the application for grant of maintenance to the applicant No.1 under Section 125 CrPC has dismissed by the learned Family Court. 2. The case of the applicants, in brief, is that applicant No.1 preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance for herself and her two children, namely, applicant No.2/daughter, born on 08.10.2013, and applicant No.3/son, born out of the wedlock, from the respondent/husband. It was pleaded that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 14.12.2012 at Pune, Maharashtra, in accordance with Hindu rites, customs and traditions. According to applicant No.1, soon after the marriage, the respondent started subjecting her to physical and mental harassment on trivial issues, frequently assaulted her and also made demands for money towards dowry. Owing to such conduct, applicant No.1 was compelled to reside separately from the respondent since 24.11.2016. It was further alleged that despite having suEcient means, the respondent willfully neglected and refused to maintain the applicants and failed to provide for their day-to-day needs. Accordingly, the applicants preferred an application seeking maintenance on the grounds of neglect and refusal to maintain, inability of applicant No.1 to maintain herself and the children, and the suEcient >nancial means of the respondent, claiming maintenance of Rs.45,000/- per month. Applicant No.1 also preferred an application seeking interim maintenance on similar grounds, whereupon the learned Family 3 Court, on the basis of the pleadings and material available on record, vide order dated 12.03.2019, granted interim maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month in favour of the applicants. 3. Upon service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and >led his reply, denying the allegations levelled against him and contending, inter alia, that applicant No.1 was a quali>ed woman and was earning substantial income, allegedly running into lakhs of rupees per month, and was capable of maintaining herself and her mother. During the pendency of the proceedings, despite repeated requests, the respondent did not disclose his complete income and >nancial particulars before the learned Family Court, compelling the applicants to >le applications seeking a direction to the respondent to furnish details of his income and >nancial status. Pursuant thereto, the respondent >led an aEdavit purportedly in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324; however, according to the applicants, the aEdavit did not contain complete particulars and was accompanied by a statement that certain documents and details would be furnished subsequently, which were never produced before the learned Court. As the respondent failed to furnish the requisite >nancial documents despite repeated opportunities, applicant No.1 thereafter >led an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking directions to the respondent to produce his Income Tax Returns for the preceding three years, salary slips for the preceding three years, 4 bank account details, details of his assets and liabilities, >xed deposits and other relevant >nancial documents. 4. The said application was partly allowed by the learned Family Court vide order dated 28.11.2024, whereby the respondent was directed to furnish the requisite details relating to his income, salary slips, Income Tax Returns and other >nancial particulars. However, despite the aforesaid speci>c direction, the respondent failed to furnish the complete details and documents as directed by the learned Court, particularly his Income Tax Returns for the preceding three years. Thereafter, the learned Family Court proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence and statements of the parties and, by the impugned order, awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month each to applicant Nos.2 and 3, totaling Rs.6,000/- per month, while declining to award any maintenance to applicant No.1. The applicants contend that the learned Family Court proceeded to determine the quantum of maintenance without having before it the complete and requisite >nancial particulars of the respondent, particularly his Income Tax Returns and other documents relating to his actual income and assets, despite the speci>c directions issued by the Court. It was further observed that applicant No.1, being a quali>ed postgraduate, was capable of maintaining herself, and on that basis no maintenance was awarded to her. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, particularly the refusal to grant maintenance to applicant No.1 and the inadequate amount awarded to applicant Nos.2 and 3, as well as the alleged failure of the learned Family Court to properly ascertain the actual 5 income and >nancial capacity of the respondent in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, the applicants have preferred the present revision petition seeking appropriate relief. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 31.12.2025 is contrary to law, perverse, erroneous and unsustainable, as the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the pleadings, evidence and material available on record and has proceeded to determine the entitlement and quantum of maintenance without adhering to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. It is contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, noticing the tendency of the parties to either exaggerate their requirements or suppress their actual income and >nancial particulars, has prescribed a uniform procedure for disclosure of assets and liabilities and has laid down relevant criteria for determination of maintenance. It is further submitted that the said guidelines were subsequently reiterated and re-circulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aditi v. Jitesh Sharma, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1451, observing that the Courts are required to adhere to the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha. However, in the present case, despite speci>c directions of the learned Family Court, the respondent-husband failed to produce his complete income-related documents, including Income Tax Returns and other relevant >nancial particulars, and the learned Family Court proceeded to decide the matter without ensuring proper disclosure and 6 veri>cation of his actual income and >nancial capacity. He further submits that the respondent-husband was speci>cally pleaded to be employed with Hindalco Industries and earning approximately Rs.80,000/- per month in the year 2019, which assertion was not eIectively rebutted by him, yet the learned Family Court failed to properly consider the same while determining maintenance. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court erred in declining maintenance to applicant No.1 on the ground that she was a quali>ed postgraduate and was capable of maintaining herself. Merely because a wife is educated or possesses a quali>cation, she cannot be presumed to have suEcient independent income to maintain herself, particularly when no cogent evidence regarding her employment or actual earnings was produced by the respondent-husband. In support of the said proposition, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 715. It is further submitted that applicant No.1 had speci>cally pleaded that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and assault by the respondent-husband, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and reside separately, and such circumstance constituted suEcient and reasonable cause for her separate residence. Therefore, the learned Family Court was not justi>ed in denying her maintenance on the premise that she had left the matrimonial home without suEcient cause. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the maintenance awarded to applicant Nos.2 and 3 is wholly 7 inadequate and disproportionate to their reasonable needs, particularly their expenses towards food, education, clothing, medical treatment and other necessities of life, and that the applicants are residing separately for suEcient and reasonable cause. It is argued that, considering the >nancial capacity of the respondent-husband and the needs of the applicants, the total maintenance deserves to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/- per month, including appropriate maintenance for applicant No.1. Learned counsel lastly submits that the impugned order is cryptic and bereft of adequate reasons, does not reJect proper assessment of the respondent-husband’s actual income and >nancial capacity, and has been passed without due compliance with the binding directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 31.12.2025 deserves to be set aside or suitably modi>ed and the maintenance amount be enhanced in favour of the applicants in accordance with law. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the present revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, as the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2025 after considering the pleadings, evidence and material available on record. It is submitted that the allegations regarding dowry demand, cruelty and assault are an afterthought and were not speci>cally pleaded in the original application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.; moreover, no 8 proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC were initiated by the applicant in respect of such allegations. It is further submitted that the applicant’s assertion that she has been residing separately since 24.11.2016 is incorrect, as she admittedly attended the marriage of the respondent’s brother on 26.11.2017 and, in fact, started residing separately only thereafter. He further submits that the respondent has always been ready and willing to maintain the applicant and the children and had made several genuine eIorts to bring the applicant back to the matrimonial home, but she refused to resume cohabitation under the inJuence of her mother and brother. It is further submitted that the applicant is highly educated and quali>ed, possessing degrees including MBA, M.Sc., M.C.M., B.Ed. and a Law degree, and had also worked at Rungta Play School, Malviya Nagar, Durg, in the year 2018, which demonstrates her capacity to earn and maintain herself. According to the respondent, the applicant voluntarily left the said employment and thereafter initiated the maintenance proceedings, and her plea that she is unable to work on account of childcare responsibilities is not sustainable, particularly when the children are school-going and are now aged about 13 and 10 years and the applicant’s mother is also residing with her. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that a spouse who is well-quali>ed and capable of earning cannot deliberately remain without employment and claim maintenance as a matter of right, and in support thereof reliance is placed upon the principles laid down in Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal and Shailja & Anr. v. 9 Khobbanna. It is also submitted that the allegations of neglect and refusal to maintain are false and baseless and that the respondent has consistently expressed his willingness to resume matrimonial life. The learned Family Court had referred the matter for counselling on several occasions and sincere eIorts were made to bring about an amicable settlement; however, despite initially agreeing to the suggestions made during counselling, the applicant subsequently resiled from the proposed settlement and, on one occasion, demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards permanent alimony in full and >nal settlement, although the settlement document had allegedly been signed by her and her counsel. He further submits that the applicant has also prevented the respondent from meeting the children despite an order permitting him to do so and has repeatedly insisted that the respondent should merely provide >nancial support while she alone would raise the children. It is further submitted that the parties had, on several occasions, agreed to resume cohabitation, but the applicant subsequently withdrew from such arrangements. The applicant had also instituted proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which came to be dismissed on 27.02.2025. Learned counsel submits that the applicant’s mother has been unnecessarily interfering in the matrimonial relationship of the parties and has been instrumental in preventing their reunion. It is further submitted that the applicant has, since 2014, initiated several proceedings against the respondent, including divorce, maintenance and domestic violence proceedings, despite there being no 10 contemporaneous medical or other reliable material substantiating the allegations of physical assault. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the respondent himself has health issues and is required to support his aged mother, who is suIering from age-related ailments and requires regular medical treatment. The respondent is also suIering from gall bladder-related problems and severe sciatic pain, and frequent appearances before the Court have adversely aIected his employment and health. It is therefore submitted that the respondent requires an opportunity to continue his employment so that he may discharge his responsibilities towards his family and children. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is suEciently educated and quali>ed and, being capable of earning, could also contribute towards the welfare and education of the children. It is also pointed out that the applicant has allegedly not made complete and correct disclosure of her >nancial particulars, including certain >xed deposits, and the respondent has placed the relevant documents on record. Reliance is also placed upon the medical documents concerning the health conditions of the respondent and his aged mother, as well as the documents relied upon by the respondent concerning the applicant’s alleged intention to remarry. Learned counsel submits that the learned Family Court, after considering the matter for a considerable period and appreciating the entire material available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order. It is further submitted that the applicant had sought change/transfer of as many as >ve Judges during the 11 pendency of the proceedings, which also reJects her conduct before the learned Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel submits that the impugned order does not suIer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction and, therefore, the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the applicants further opposes the reply >led by the respondent and submits that it is misconceived, evasive and contrary to the pleadings and material available on record and has been >led only to divert the attention of this Court from the principal issue involved in the present revision, namely, the failure of the learned Family Court to properly assess the actual income and >nancial capacity of the respondent and the erroneous rejection of the maintenance claim of applicant No.1 merely on the ground that she is highly quali>ed. It is submitted that the respondent has failed to answer the material grounds raised in the revision, particularly his non-compliance with the order dated 28.11.2024 whereby he was directed to produce his income-related documents, including salary slips, Income Tax Returns, bank details, assets and liabilities and other relevant >nancial particulars. He submits that despite the speci>c direction of the learned Family Court, the respondent deliberately failed to place the requisite documents on record and, therefore, cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own non- compliance and subsequently contend that his actual income has not been established. It is further submitted that the relationship between the parties is admitted and applicant No.1 is the legally 12 wedded wife of the respondent, while applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children born out of the wedlock, and that the applicants are residing separately for suEcient and reasonable cause. Learned counsel further submits that the defence that applicant No.1 is highly educated and therefore capable of maintaining herself is legally untenable, as mere educational quali>cation or capability to earn cannot be equated with actual employment or actual income. Applicant No.1 has speci>cally stated that she has no independent source of income suEcient for her maintenance, whereas the respondent has not produced any appointment letter, salary slip, Income Tax Return, bank statement, employment record or any other reliable material to establish that she is presently employed or earning any income. It is submitted that the alleged employment of applicant No.1 at Rungta Play School in the year 2018, even if assumed to be correct, does not establish her present employment or present >nancial capacity, and no material has been produced regarding the duration of such employment, salary received or the circumstances in which the same came to an end. He places reliance upon the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, to contend that merely because a wife is quali>ed or capable of earning, her claim for maintenance cannot be rejected in the absence of proof of suEcient independent income. It is further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the respondent in Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal and Shailja v. Khobbanna do not lay down any absolute proposition that an 13 educated wife is disentitled to maintenance, and entitlement has to be determined on the basis of her actual income, reasonable needs and the >nancial capacity of the husband. 11. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the allegations levelled against the mother of applicant No.1 and other family members are wholly irrelevant, unsubstantiated and have no bearing upon the statutory right of the applicants to claim maintenance. Similarly, the alleged newspaper cutting relied upon by the respondent as Annexure R/6 is speci>cally denied and is neither relevant nor suEcient to disprove the marital relationship between the parties, the paternity of the minor children, the alleged neglect and refusal to maintain or the >nancial capacity of the respondent, and its authenticity, source, admissibility and evidentiary value are disputed. It is further submitted that the contention that no proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC were initiated is wholly irrelevant, as the right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is an independent statutory remedy and the absence of a prosecution under Section 498-A of the IPC cannot, by itself, establish that the allegations of cruelty or harassment are false. He further submits that applicant No.1 has been looking after the minor children and discharging their day-to- day care and domestic responsibilities, and the fact that the children are school-going or that her mother resides with her does not absolve the respondent of his independent legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor children. It is also submitted that the institution of lawful proceedings by applicant No.1 for protection and 14 enforcement of her legal rights cannot be termed as harassment merely because the respondent has been required to appear before the Court. Learned counsel reiterates that the respondent deliberately failed to produce his Income Tax Returns, salary slips, bank account details, assets and liabilities, >xed deposit particulars and other relevant >nancial documents despite the speci>c order dated 28.11.2024, and such failure warranted an adverse inference against him, particularly when the said documents were within his exclusive possession and knowledge. It is contended that the learned Family Court committed a serious error in proceeding to decide the maintenance proceedings without securing compliance with its own order and without properly determining the actual income and >nancial capacity of the respondent, contrary to the procedure and principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, regarding disclosure of assets, liabilities and >nancial information. He further submits that, in the absence of the relevant >nancial documents, the learned Family Court could not have properly assessed the respondent’s salary, allowances, employment bene>ts, investments, assets, liabilities and standard of living. It is also submitted that the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month awarded to each of applicant Nos.2 and 3 is grossly inadequate and wholly disproportionate to their educational, medical, nutritional and other day-to-day expenses, particularly having regard to the prevailing cost of living and the >nancial status of the respondent, who is stated to be employed in a reputed industrial establishment. He, therefore, submits that the 15 impugned order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in Misc. Criminal Case No.477/2018, suIers from material illegality and failure to properly appreciate the evidence and settled principles governing maintenance and, therefore, deserves to be set aside and the present revision petition deserves to be allowed by granting appropriate maintenance to applicant No.1 and enhancing the amount awarded in favour of applicant Nos.2 and 3. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 13. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, has rightly appreciated the respective contentions of the parties and has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month each in favour of applicant Nos.2 and 3. The learned Family Court has also considered the circumstances relating to the matrimonial relationship between the parties, the needs of the minor children and the material brought on record while determining the quantum of maintenance payable to them. However, insofar as the claim of applicant No.1 is concerned, it appears that the learned Family Court has declined to grant maintenance primarily on the ground that she is a highly quali>ed person and, therefore, capable of earning. The said >nding, however, does not appear to be based upon any cogent material establishing that applicant No.1 is presently employed or has 16 suEcient independent income to maintain herself. The mere fact that applicant No.1 possesses educational quali>cations or had been employed at some point of time cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of her present >nancial independence. Further, the >nancial capacity of the respondent has also not been assessed on the basis of complete and reliable >nancial documents, particularly in view of the directions issued by the learned Family Court for production of such documents. In such circumstances, the claim of applicant No.1 requires fresh consideration in accordance with the settled principles governing maintenance proceedings. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 31.12.2025 calls for interference only to the limited extent of the claim of applicant No.1. Accordingly, the present revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 31.12.2025, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in Misc. Criminal Case No.477/2018, is set aside insofar as it relates to the rejection of the maintenance claim of applicant No.1. However, the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court in favour of applicant Nos.2 and 3 at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month each shall remain undisturbed. 15. The matter, insofar as the claim of applicant No.1 is concerned, is remanded back to the learned Family Court concerned for fresh consideration of her application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in 17 accordance with law, after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after duly considering their respective pleadings, evidence and >nancial particulars in accordance with the settled principles governing determination of maintenance. The learned Family Court shall endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Family Court concerned on 09.09.2026. The learned Family Court shall proceed with the matter from the stage of fresh consideration of the claim of applicant No.1, without being inJuenced by any observation made herein. 16. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the certi>ed copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan