1 CGHC010093322025 2026:CGHC:34568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 323 of 2025 Smt. Yameeni Dilliwar W/o Suryakant Dilliwar Aged About 29 Years R/o Through Father, Remsevak Dilliwar, Village Vinayakpur, Police Station Anda Tehsil and District Durg - Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus Suryakant Dilliwar S/o Vishnuprashad Dilliwar Aged About 35 Years R/o Quarter No. 15/ D, Road No. 18, Sector - 7, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. P.R. Patankar and Mr. Vikas Grhitlahre, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.879/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the maintenance application of the applicant/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance from the respondent. It was pleaded that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.07 15:50:33 +0530 2 19.02.2017 at Village Ruda, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.). At the time of marriage, the applicant's parents provided all customary household articles and other gifts as demanded by the respondent's family. However, soon after the marriage, the respondent and his family members allegedly started subjecting the applicant to mental harassment and cruelty, which adversely affected her health. It was further alleged that on 14.01.2018, the applicant was sent to her parental home and, despite waiting for the respondent to take her back, he neither visited nor made any effort to resume cohabitation. The applicant further alleged that she was pressured not to conceive a child to avoid the financial burden of raising one, was restrained from interacting with others, and that the respondent had been unwilling to maintain the matrimonial relationship from the very beginning. Although several attempts were made by the applicant and her family members to resolve the matrimonial dispute through social intervention and reconciliation, the respondent refused to take her back. It was also pleaded that the respondent was employed as a Relationship Officer with Birla Sun Life Insurance Company, Raipur, and was earning approximately Rs. 25,000/- per month. 3. The respondent filed his reply denying all the allegations made by the applicant. He contended that it was the applicant who subjected him to mental cruelty by consistently refusing to consummate the marriage and by failing to discharge her matrimonial obligations. According to the respondent, despite repeated efforts by him and other family members to resolve the matrimonial discord through counselling and intervention, the applicant's conduct remained unchanged. It was further pleaded that the applicant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause. The respondent denied all allegations of harassment and cruelty and asserted that neither he nor his family members had ever ill-treated 3 the applicant. He further stated that he had no independent source of income and was financially dependent upon his father. 4. The learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 05.02.2025, rejected the applicant's application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and declined to grant maintenance. The learned Family Court held that the applicant had failed to establish sufficient cause for residing separately from the respondent and observed that she had voluntarily refused to consummate the marriage and had withdrawn from the matrimonial relationship without any justifiable reason. Consequently, it was held that the applicant was not entitled to maintenance. The applicant contends that the aforesaid findings are wholly unjust, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the material evidence in its proper perspective and erroneously denied maintenance to the applicant. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal, perverse, and contrary to law, and is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in holding that the applicant was residing separately from the respondent without sufficient cause. The material available on record clearly indicates that the applicant was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on account of mental cruelty and harassment allegedly meted out by the respondent and his family members, which constitutes a valid and sufficient ground for living separately and claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, wherein the object and scope of maintenance proceedings have been elaborately explained. The denial of maintenance to the applicant is contrary to the 4 settled principles governing grant of maintenance. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record demonstrating that the applicant was subjected to mental cruelty, harassment, and unlawful demands by the respondent and his family members, which compelled her to reside separately. The learned Family Court failed to consider the emotional, physical, and financial hardship suffered by the applicant due to the conduct of the respondent, while deciding her claim for maintenance. The learned Family Court ought to have considered that the respondent is an able-bodied person having earning capacity and is legally bound to maintain his wife. The Court failed to strike a just and equitable balance while adjudicating the applicant's claim for maintenance. The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to the facts, evidence on record, and the settled principles of law governing proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. While determining the respondent's financial capacity, only lawful and statutory deductions, if any, could have been taken into consideration in accordance with the settled legal position. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the true object, scope, and spirit of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is a beneficial provision enacted to prevent destitution and vagrancy by providing financial support to a wife who is unable to maintain herself. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 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. 9. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let the certified of the this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti