1 CGHC010111232025 2026:CGHC:37127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 434 of 2025 Gaurav Saraswat S/o Late Shri Vijay Saraswat Aged About 43 Years R/o- Flat No. 101, C/42, Shri Nidhi Apartments, Tarun Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan, 302004 ... Applicant(s) versus Richa Ojha D/o Shri Ramchandra Ojha Aged About 36 Years R/o- C/316, Priyadarshani Nagar, Ring Road, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19 /08/2026 1. The applicant has preferred the present criminal revision against the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.1250/2019, whereby the learned Family Court rejected AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 the preliminary objection raised by the applicant regarding the maintainability of the recovery proceedings under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.5,36,500/-, failing which a levy warrant would be issued. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent solemnized their marriage on 08.12.2010 at Jaipur according to Hindu rites and rituals. No child was born out of the wedlock. According to the applicant, the respondent left the matrimonial home in July 2011 and despite repeated efforts, refused to resume cohabitation. The applicant thereafter obtained an ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 06.01.2014. Subsequently, an ex-parte order granting maintenance to the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was passed on 24.05.2013. As the respondent did not resume matrimonial life, the applicant instituted proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which culminated in an ex-parte decree of divorce dated 03.09.2015. The respondent's challenge to the said decree was ultimately dismissed by the High Court of Rajasthan on 15.11.2021, whereby the decree of divorce attained finality. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking alteration of the maintenance amount, which was dismissed by the Family Court on 25.11.2023, and the said order is under challenge before this Court in Criminal Revision 3 No.210/2024. Meanwhile, the respondent initiated recovery proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. in MJC No.1250/2019 claiming arrears of Rs.5,48,500/-. During the said proceedings, pursuant to orders passed by this Court in WP(227) No.222/2022, the applicant deposited Rs.4,50,000/- and furnished a security of Rs.3,00,000/-. The applicant subsequently filed an affidavit stating that he had already paid Rs.5,14,000/- towards maintenance through cash and cheques and had also furnished the aforesaid security. In view of the payments already made, the applicant raised a preliminary objection before the Family Court contending that the recovery proceedings had become non-maintainable as the amount claimed in the application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. had substantially been paid. However, the learned Family Court rejected the objection and held the outstanding maintenance amount up to September 2024 to be Rs.5,36,500/-, despite the original recovery application having been filed in 2019 for Rs.5,48,500/-. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision. It is also relevant that the applicant was acquitted of the allegations under Section 498-A IPC in the criminal case instituted by the respondent, vide order dated 13.02.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is perverse, erroneous and contrary to the material available on record. The learned Court below failed to properly appreciate that the applicant had 4 already paid substantial amounts towards maintenance, exceeding the amount claimed in the recovery application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., and therefore, the recovery proceedings and issuance of levy warrant were not legally sustainable. The learned Court also erred in directing recovery for a period beyond the scope of the original application and contrary to the limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the applicant's changed financial circumstances and his inability to pay the maintenance amount. The applicant has no stable source of income, whereas the respondent is better qualified, runs an event-management business and is capable of maintaining herself. The applicant had also made efforts to preserve the matrimonial relationship and had obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, followed by a decree of divorce which has attained finality. Thus, the finding that the applicant neglected or refused to maintain the respondent is contrary to the facts and evidence on record. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to apply the settled principles governing determination and recovery of maintenance, including the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, requiring a fair and realistic assessment of the financial capacity and circumstances of both parties. The applicant's affidavit disclosing his financial condition and inability to pay was not effectively rebutted. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting 5 the preliminary objection and directing recovery of the alleged arrears, including issuance of levy warrant, is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the material available on record and the amount of maintenance due, has rightly rejected the preliminary objection and directed recovery of the outstanding amount. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rejected the preliminary objection raised by the applicant challenging the maintainability of the recovery proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. The applicant had contended that the recovery application was originally filed on 20.12.2019 for recovery of Rs.5,48,500/- and that he had already paid substantial amounts towards the maintenance, including Rs.4,50,000/- deposited pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble High Court, besides other payments made in cash/cheque, and had also executed a security bond of Rs.3,00,000/-. However, the respondent disputed the applicant’s claim of payment and stated that she had received a total amount of Rs.5,29,000/- only, while a further sum remained outstanding. The learned Family Court, 6 after considering the respective affidavits, objections, documents and the orders passed by a co-ordinage Bench of this Court in WP No.227/2022, observed that the respondent had originally claimed Rs.5,48,500/- towards arrears of maintenance on 20.12.2019, which subsequently increased during the pendency of the execution proceedings. The Court further noted that, pursuant to the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by this Court, the applicant had deposited Rs.4,50,000/-, and thereafter certain other payments were also claimed by the parties. On the basis of the affidavits filed by both sides, the respondent asserted that she had received Rs.5,29,000/- in total and that Rs.5,36,500/- was still due towards maintenance up to September 2024. 7. The learned Family Court further observed that the applicant had himself admitted execution of a security bond for Rs.3,00,000/- and that the said amount had not actually been paid to the respondent. Consequently, the Court concluded that the entire maintenance liability had not been discharged and that the respondent was still entitled to recover the outstanding amount. Accordingly, the preliminary objection filed by the applicant was rejected, and the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,36,500/- towards the outstanding maintenance amount, with a further direction that, in the event of failure to make payment, a levy warrant would be issued in accordance with law. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding 7 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil