1 CGHC010121532025 2026:CGHC:35951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 443 of 2025 Swati Sen W/o Vivek Sen Aged About 38 Years R/o Rani Laxmi Bai Chowk, Kelabadi, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Vivek Sen S/o Kali Das Sen Aged About 43 Years R/o Kali Das Sen, Ajay Book Depot, Station Road, Shahdol (M.P.) … Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 3led by the applicant with the following prayer : “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision and award maintenance to the applicant as prayed in the application from the non applicant in the larger interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant had 3led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Family Court, Durg, seeking maintenance from the non-applicant, stating that her marriage with the non-applicant was solemnized on 21.05.2011 at Shahdol in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and that, after the marriage, she joined the matrimonial home, however, after some time, the conduct and behaviour of the non- applicant changed and he started abusing and assaulting her and making demands for dowry, particularly demanding an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parental family. It was further alleged that after about nine months of the marriage, the non-applicant deserted the applicant by leaving her at Durg and categorically informed her that she could return to her matrimonial home only after bringing Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents. The applicant, having no independent source of income, was thereafter residing with her widowed mother and brothers at Durg, whereas the non-applicant was employed as a teacher in a Government High School and was earning approximately Rs.20,000/- per month besides other emoluments and was also possessed of ancestral agricultural land yielding approximately Rs.3,50,000/- per annum, accordingly, the applicant claimed maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the applicant moved an application for interim maintenance on 12.05.2014, which was registered as CIS No.254/2014 and subsequently as M.Cr.C. No.09/2016, and after service of notice, the non-applicant appeared in the proceedings on 03.07.2014. Thereafter, the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, vide order dated 28.05.2015, granted interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month 3 in favour of the applicant. In the meantime, with an alleged intention to frustrate the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the non-applicant instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the competent Family Court at Shahdol, which was registered as Civil Suit No.37-A/2014, and vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the non-applicant. The applicant, however, maintained that she had suBcient and reasonable cause to reside separately from the non-applicant on account of the cruelty and harassment meted out to her and that the said decree had been erroneously passed despite the evidence led by her and her brother establishing the circumstances compelling her to live separately, accordingly, she preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur against the said decree, wherein the operation of the order was stayed and the matter remained pending. Subsequently, the learned Family Court, Durg, vide order dated 20.09.2016, dismissed the applicant’s application for maintenance principally on the ground that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights dated 27.11.2014 had attained 3nality and, therefore, the applicant was not entitled to maintenance. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No.1160/2016 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which was allowed vide order dated 25.08.2022, whereby the order dated 20.09.2016 was set aside after recording a 3nding that suBcient material was available on record to establish that the applicant was residing separately on account of the cruelty extended by the non-applicant, and the non- 4 applicant was directed to deposit the entire outstanding amount of maintenance within a period of two months. Pursuant to the said order, the non-applicant paid an amount of Rs.2,19,000/- towards the outstanding maintenance calculated at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. Thereafter, considering that the interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month had originally been 3xed vide order dated 28.05.2015, that the non-applicant’s income had substantially increased with the passage of time and that he was presently earning approximately Rs.50,000/- per month, coupled with the fact that the applicant had undergone surgery at AIIMS Hospital in August, 2022, resulting in diminished working capacity and continuing medical and medication expenses, the applicant 3led an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, registered as Misc. Criminal Case No.973/2023, seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month on account of changed circumstances, increase in the non-applicant’s income, rising cost of living and the applicant’s medical condition. 3. The non-applicant opposed the said application by 3ling his reply, contending, inter alia, that there was no subsisting order directing him to pay maintenance after the 3nal order and that he had already complied with the order passed by the High Court dated 25.08.2022 by depositing the entire outstanding amount. The applicant also 3led an application under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. claiming an amount of Rs.33,000/- towards maintenance for the period from 26.08.2022 to 25.07.2023, which was also opposed by the non- 5 applicant. 4. Thereafter, the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, vide impugned order dated 03.02.2025, dismissed the applicant’s claim under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. as well as her application seeking enhancement of maintenance, principally holding that there was no speci3c order directing the non-applicant to continue making payment of maintenance after the date of the 3nal order and that the non-applicant had already complied with the direction contained in the order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh by paying the outstanding amount. Being aggrieved by the said 3ndings and dismissal of her claim for enhancement of maintenance despite the alleged change in circumstances, substantial increase in the non-applicant’s income, escalation in the cost of living and the applicant’s medical requirements, the applicant has preferred the instant Criminal Revision before this Hon’ble Court, seeking interference with the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 and grant of appropriate relief in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and has been passed without properly appreciating the material available on record as well as the settled principles governing grant and recovery of maintenance under Sections 125 and 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the very 6 object of the aforesaid provisions is to prevent destitution and vagrancy and to ensure that a deserted wife having no suBcient independent source of income is able to maintain herself with dignity. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has been residing separately from the non-applicant for valid and suBcient reasons and that the High Court of Chhattisgarh, vide order dated 25.08.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.1160/2016, had categorically found suBcient material to establish that the applicant was residing separately on account of cruelty extended by the non-applicant and had set aside the order dated 20.09.2016 passed by the Family Court. It is further submitted that the direction issued by the High Court to clear the outstanding arrears of maintenance by making payment of Rs.2,19,000/- was only in respect of the arrears accrued up to that point and nowhere records that the non-applicant’s liability to maintain the applicant would cease upon such payment. The learned Family Court has therefore committed an error in treating the payment of the outstanding arrears as extinguishing the non- applicant’s continuing obligation to maintain his wife, particularly when the applicant has no suBcient source of income to sustain herself and the non-applicant is legally bound to provide for her subsistence. 6. It is also submitted that the order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the High Court has neither been challenged nor set aside by the non- applicant before any superior Court and, consequently, the 3ndings recorded therein regarding the applicant’s entitlement and the 7 circumstances compelling her to live separately have attained 3nality. The learned Family Court has further failed to properly consider the changed circumstances, including the substantial increase in the non-applicant’s income, the rise in the cost of living and the applicant’s medical condition and expenses, which constitute suBcient grounds for consideration of her prayer for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. The impugned order, therefore, suDers from misappreciation of the facts and law and has resulted in serious prejudice to the applicant, who has been left without adequate means for her subsistence. It is accordingly submitted that the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the settled principles governing maintenance and, if allowed to stand, would cause grave and irreparable prejudice to the applicant, hence, the same deserves to be set aside and the applicant’s claim for maintenance and enhancement thereof be considered and allowed in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, submissions of the parties, evidence and 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 Sections 125(3) and 127 of the Cr.P.C. The learned 8 Family Court has rightly taken into consideration the fact that the original application for maintenance had already been adjudicated and that, pursuant to the order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No.1160/2016, the non-applicant had duly complied with the direction to clear the entire outstanding amount of maintenance by making payment of Rs.2,19,000/- to the applicant. The learned Family Court has further rightly appreciated that the order dated 25.08.2022 did not contain any speci3c direction requiring the non-applicant to continue making payment of Rs.3,000/- per month after the clearance of the outstanding amount, and therefore the applicant could not claim arrears for the subsequent period under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. merely on the basis of the earlier interim order. So far as the prayer for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, the learned Family Court has also considered the nature and eDect of the orders passed in the earlier proceedings and the material placed by both sides and has rightly declined to grant the relief sought by the applicant in the absence of a subsisting order of maintenance requiring further payment by the non-applicant. The 3ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based upon proper appreciation of the record and cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary or contrary to law. The applicant has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Thus, on an overall consideration of the pleadings, evidence, documents and circumstances brought on record, this 9 Court 3nds that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order after due application of mind and in accordance with the material available on record. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 3nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in3rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a certi3ed copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan