1 2026:CGHC:4421 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 696 of 2024 Tejpal Singh S/o Gurnet Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Qtr No. 01/a,street No 01/a, Street No 38, Russian Block, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg. ... Applicant versus Smt. Sona Dutta W/o Tejpal Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Qtr No 9/a, Street No 38, Russian Block, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 3led by the applicant with the following prayer: “In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Applicant humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: 1. Call for the entire records relating to the present case from the Ld. Court below; 2. Allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 24.05.2024 passed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Criminal Case No. 199 of 2023, in the interest of justice; and 3. Any, other orders, directions & reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think 1t & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant and the respondent were known to each other since 10.12.2020 and pursuant thereto their marriage was solemnized on 23.04.2021 at Sector-6, Bhilai in accordance with Sikh rites and rituals. The Respondent-wife thereafter 3led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that it was agreed between the parties that the applicant would reside at her parental house and bear the household expenses, however, after a few months of marriage his behaviour changed and he subjected her to cruelty and harassment on account of alleged non-payment of dowry, due to which she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home, and further alleged that despite su:cient income of about Rs.70,000–80,000 per month, the applicant neglected to maintain her and sought maintenance of Rs.25,000 per month. The applicant 3led his reply denying the allegations and speci3cally pleaded that he is a driver by profession working under one Mr. Manjit Singh and earning only Rs.8,000 per month, and that he was always ready and willing to reside with the respondent but due to her conduct and harassment, he was disowned by his mother and compelled to live separately, it was further pleaded that the respondent is herself 3 employed as an insurance agent with Star Health Insurance and earning about Rs.7,000 per month. It was also brought on record that an earlier application under Section 125 CrPC 3led by the respondent was withdrawn pursuant to settlement between the parties, but thereafter the respondent again deserted the applicant, compelling him to 3le an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and that a false criminal case under Sections 294, 323 and 506 IPC has also been lodged against him, which is pending consideration. Despite the aforesaid facts, a:davits of income on record, and despite holding that the applicant is not a doctor, the learned Trial Court presumed his income to be Rs.50,000 per month and further ignored material facts including the respondent’s employment, bank transactions of Rs.20,00,000, suppression of one bank account, and the fact that she is already receiving maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month under the Domestic Violence Act, and by order impugned granted maintenance of Rs.4,500 per month in favour of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court and is bad in the eyes of law, unjust, arbitrary and liable to be set aside as it causes irreparable loss to the applicant. It is contended that the respondent had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home without any just or reasonable cause and, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance, as 4 held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohtash Singh v. Smt. Ramendri & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 180, which has also been followed by this Hon’ble Court in Shiv Kumar Yadav v. Santoshi Yadav, Crl. Revision No. 544/2003, decided on 15.02.2004. It is further submitted that the respondent is educated, capable of maintaining herself and is gainfully employed, and in fact is working with Star Health Insurance and earning approximately Rs.7,000 per month, yet the learned Court failed to appreciate this material fact, despite documentary evidence on record, and erred in awarding maintenance. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rupali Gupta v. Rajat Gupta, (2016) 234 DLT 693 and Damanreet Kaur v. Indarmeet Juneja, (2013) 1 JCC 306, as well as on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal, (2000) DMC 170, wherein it has been held that a quali3ed and earning wife, or a wife capable of earning but sitting idle, is not entitled to claim maintenance. It is further submitted that the Respondent failed to prove any act of cruelty or harassment by the applicant, and in the absence thereof, maintenance ought not to have been granted, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deb Narayan Haider v. Smt. Anushree Haider, AIR 2003 SC 3174. It is also submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in Bheekha Ram v. Goma Devi & Ors., 1999 Cri LJ 1789 has categorically held that a wife who leaves the matrimonial home of her own volition and resides with her parents is not entitled to maintenance. Further, even assuming without admitting that maintenance was payable, the learned Court 5 grossly erred in presuming the income of the applicant to be Rs.50,000 per month despite holding that he is not a doctor and despite a:davits on record showing his income to be about Rs.10,000 per month, and in any case the quantum awarded is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200, wherein it was held that ordinarily 25% of the husband’s income would be an appropriate amount towards maintenance. It is lastly submitted that the learned Court failed to consider that the applicant has aged parents who are suCering from ailments, require regular medical care and are entirely dependent upon him, and therefore the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly appreciating the pleadings, evidence and material placed on record by both the parties, has rightly passed the impugned order granting maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife. The learned Court considered the admitted relationship between the parties and the fact that the respondent- wife was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to cruelty and harassment, and further took into account the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. The Court, after examining the a:davits of income and overall circumstances, reasonably 6 assessed the earning capacity of the applicant and recorded a 3nding that he was capable of earning more than what was disclosed by him, and therefore rightly presumed his income while determining the quantum of maintenance. The learned Family Court also took note of the fact that the respondent-wife had no su:cient and stable source of income to maintain herself with dignity, and that mere alleged employment or capability to earn does not disentitle a legally wedded wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The quantum of maintenance awarded, i.e., Rs.4,500 per month, is modest, reasonable and in consonance with the settled principles of law. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certi3ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan