1 CGHC010100832025 2026:CGHC:35952 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 391 of 2025 Mrs. Meenalkolachana W/o Mr. Rajesh Kolachana Aged About 33 Years R/o Shankar Ward , Jaistambh Chowk, Bhatapara City, Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Mr. Rajesh Kolachana S/o Mr. Kameshwar Rao Kolachana Aged About 35 Years R/o 1-9-5/a/b, Flat No. 508, Chanakya Residency, Ramnagar Gundu Road, Vidya Nagar, Mushirabad, Hyderabad, Telangana-500044. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Manubha Shankar, Advocate For Respondent : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer: “In light of the foregoing submissions, it is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may graciously be pleased to: a. Call for the entire records of the Misc. Criminal Case No. 208/2023; b. Set-aside the 'nal judgment and order RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 dated 07.10.2024 passed by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar (C.G) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 208/2023; c. Direct the Respondent to pay monthly maintenance to the tune of INR 1,00,000/- to the Applicant/Revisionist; d. Pass any other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem 't in facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was married to the respondent on 21.11.2019 at Hyderabad, Telangana, in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals in the presence of their respective family members, though the applicant had initially desired that the marriage be solemnized at her hometown, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh, which proposal was not agreed to by the respondent. It is alleged that immediately after the ring ceremony held on 20.06.2019, the respondent and his family members started making demands for gold chains and rings for the respondent and his close relatives, silver utensils, clothes for the respondent for various wedding ceremonies and functions, and cash amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-, which demands were allegedly ful7lled by the applicant and her father. It is further alleged that the gold ornaments gifted to the applicant at the time of marriage are still in the custody of the respondent’s mother. After the marriage, the applicant initially resided with the respondent and his family members and thereafter accompanied the respondent on a trip to Europe, the expenses whereof were allegedly borne from the cash received by the respondent from the applicant’s family at the time of 3 marriage. According to the applicant, a few months after the marriage, the conduct and behaviour of the respondent towards her changed and he frequently quarreled with her, compared her with the wives of his friends and continuously criticized and humiliated her and, at times, abused not only the applicant but also her parents over trivial matters. It is further alleged that the respondent restricted the applicant’s interaction with and visits to her maternal family, prevented her from attending social events and gatherings and, whenever she questioned such conduct, would lose his temper, throw objects and accuse her of practising black magic upon his family. The applicant also alleged that her mother-in-law would frequently administer certain medicines to the respondent, which caused her concern regarding his mental well-being. It is further alleged that, whenever disputes arose between the parties, the respondent used to call the applicant’s parents and demand that they apologise on behalf of their daughter, on account of which the applicant’s parents were required to travel from Dalla, Uttar Pradesh, to Hyderabad on several occasions to pacify the respondent and his family, and on each such occasion they allegedly brought valuable gifts for the respondent. Subsequently, when the respondent was transferred to the United States in connection with his employment, the applicant accompanied him, however, it is alleged that the respondent continued his abusive and aggressive behaviour even during their stay abroad, frequently blaming the applicant for his work-related stress and health problems and physically assaulting her over trivial disputes. 4 3. The applicant further alleged that on several occasions the respondent con7ned her in the bathroom for hours, causing her considerable mental trauma and adversely aCecting her emotional and psychological well-being. During their stay abroad, the applicant’s parents noticed a substantial deterioration in her condition and, being concerned for her safety and well-being, requested the respondent to send her back to India for some time, however, the respondent initially refused, stating that he did not wish to incur expenditure on her, and only agreed to send her back after the applicant’s parents threatened to seek assistance from the Indian Embassy. Thereafter, owing to the alleged continuous physical and mental abuse, the applicant claimed that she became depressed, lost her appetite, suCered from disturbed sleep and was unable to properly carry out her day-to-day activities. Eventually, the applicant returned to her maternal home at Bhatapara and made eCorts to contact the respondent with a view to resolving the matrimonial dispute, however, the respondent allegedly refused to communicate with her and informed the applicant and her parents that she should not be sent back to the matrimonial home. The parents of the applicant thereafter approached the parents of the respondent, but they also allegedly supported the respondent’s stand. Having allegedly been left with no other option, the applicant approached the competent authorities and lodged a written complaint alleging mental and physical cruelty at the hands of the respondent and his family members, pursuant to which FIR No.0159/2023 was registered on 19.05.2023 at Police Station Bhatapara City for oCences punishable under Sections 498-A and 5 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the respondent and his parents. The applicant states that she is presently residing with her parents at District Balodabazar-Bhatapara and is facing 7nancial hardship and has no suDcient independent means to maintain herself. Consequently, she instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh, seeking maintenance from the respondent, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No.208/2023, however, the learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, dismissed the application vide judgment and order dated 07.10.2024. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of her claim for maintenance, the applicant has preferred the present Criminal Revision before this Hon’ble Court, seeking interference with the impugned judgment and order and grant of appropriate relief in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned 7nal judgment and order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts, evidence and settled principles of law and has been rendered without proper application of judicial mind. It is submitted that the learned Court below has erred in entering into the veracity of the allegations of domestic violence and cruelty made by the applicant against the respondent and his parents, particularly when there was no contrary pleading or cogent documentary evidence produced by the respondent to dislodge the speci7c allegations made by the applicant. The learned Court below has further failed to properly appreciate the uncontroverted 6 testimony of the applicant and her father, which suDciently established the circumstances in which the applicant was compelled to live separately from the respondent and demonstrated that she was not residing away from her husband without any just or suDcient cause. It is further submitted that the mere fact that the applicant did not immediately lodge a formal complaint cannot, by itself, be treated as a circumstance to disbelieve her allegations, particularly in matrimonial disputes involving mental and physical cruelty. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No.5896/2024, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that a wife may be entitled to maintenance even where she refuses to reside with her husband pursuant to a decree, provided she has a just and suDcient reason for doing so. It is also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish Shetty v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.1358 of 2008, has emphasized that delay in lodging an FIR in cases involving matrimonial cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC has to be considered sympathetically, keeping in view the mental condition and circumstances of the victim and her close relations. Thus, the approach adopted by the learned Family Court in doubting the applicant merely on the basis of the alleged delay in approaching the authorities is legally unsustainable. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to properly assess the respondent’s actual 7 7nancial capacity and resources while considering the applicant’s entitlement to maintenance. The documentary material regarding the respondent’s income pertained to the year 2022, whereas the respondent continues to be employed with Amazon and his present earning capacity and potential increase in income have not been appropriately appreciated. It is submitted that the applicant had become 7nancially dependent upon the respondent after marriage and, owing to the circumstances arising from the matrimonial relationship and the psychological trauma allegedly suCered by her, she has no suDcient independent source of income to maintain herself. The learned Court below has also failed to take into consideration the standard of living enjoyed by the applicant during the subsistence of the marriage and the settled principle that maintenance should be such as to enable a wife to live with reasonable dignity and in a manner commensurate with the standard of living to which she was accustomed in the matrimonial home. Reliance has further been placed upon Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the scope of the expression “unable to maintain herself” and emphasized that the object of maintenance is to prevent destitution and ensure a digni7ed existence. The applicant submits that her inability to earn and maintain herself, coupled with her 7nancial dependence upon the respondent and her psychological condition, clearly warrants an award of maintenance. The learned Family Court has also failed to appreciate that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution and, therefore, is required to receive a bene7cial and 8 purposive interpretation. The respondent, being the husband and having suDcient earning capacity, cannot evade his statutory obligation to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself. It is further submitted that the principles relating to determination of quantum of maintenance, including the husband’s income, earning capacity, the wife’s reasonable needs and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, were required to be duly considered before rejecting the applicant’s claim. 6. It is also submitted that the present revision has been preferred bona 'de and in the interest of justice, as the impugned judgment has caused serious prejudice to the applicant by denying her 7nancial support despite her alleged inability to maintain herself. The learned Court below has failed to adopt the welfare-oriented and humanitarian approach contemplated under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and has thereby defeated the very object of the provision. The applicant therefore submits that grave and irreparable prejudice would be caused to her if the impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2024 is permitted to stand. It is accordingly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment and order and grant appropriate maintenance to the applicant in accordance with law and on the basis of the respondent’s actual 7nancial capacity and the applicant’s legitimate needs. It is further submitted that the present revision has been 7led bona 7de and that the applicant has not preferred any other similar application or revision before this Hon’ble Court or before any other Court in respect of the subject matter of the present proceedings. 9 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.). 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, depositions of the parties and the material available on record, has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and has committed no error in dismissing the application preferred by the applicant under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court has carefully examined the allegations of cruelty, harassment and domestic violence levelled by the applicant against the respondent and his family members and has considered the evidence led by the parties in their proper perspective. The learned Court has rightly appreciated that the mere assertion of matrimonial discord or allegations of cruelty, in the absence of suDcient and reliable material establishing the circumstances which compelled the applicant to live separately, could not by itself be treated as conclusive proof of her entitlement to maintenance. The learned Family Court has also properly considered the circumstances in which the applicant had been residing separately from the respondent and has assessed whether such separation was supported by a just and suDcient cause within 10 the meaning of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The subsequent registration of FIR No.0159/2023 under Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC was also considered in the backdrop of the overall evidence and circumstances of the case and was not treated as, by itself, determinative of the applicant’s entitlement to maintenance. The learned Family Court has further examined the material placed on record regarding the respondent’s employment and 7nancial capacity and, upon appreciation of the evidence available before it, has recorded its 7ndings by assigning cogent and sustainable reasons. The impugned judgment reKects due application of judicial mind and proper consideration of the material brought on record by both sides. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 7nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in7rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Let a certi7ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan