1 2026:CGHC:7097 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 33 of 2024 Rajesh Kothari S/o Manilal Kothari Aged About 52 Years R/o 13 Gujarati Colony, Near Jai Bhole Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Rashmi Kothari W/o Rajesh Kothari Aged About 50 Years R/o Mahaveer Nagar, Behind Janta Hotel, Near Super States Colony, Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Swati Kothari D/o Shri Rajesh Kothari Aged About 23 Years R/o Mahaveer Nagar, Behind Janta Hotel, Near Super States Colony, Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Dhwani Kothari D/o Shri Rajesh Kothari Aged About 19 Years R/o Mahaveer Nagar, Behind Janta Hotel, Near Super States Colony, Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents ( Cause title taken from CIS) For Applicant : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. Heard Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been :led by the applicant with the following prayer: • “That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to Criminal M.C.C Case No. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.11 10:56:48 +0530 2 186/2022 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.). • That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set- aside/quash Order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Second Additional Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) and further be pleased quash the entire proceedings pursuant to the application 1led by the respondent under section 125 Cr. P.C. • Any other relief/ reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may think 1t and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 09.09.1997. The respondent preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, which was registered as Criminal M.C.C. Case No. 186/2022 on 10.03.2022. In her application, the respondent alleged that shortly after the marriage, she discovered that the applicant was grappling with substance addiction. She further alleged that the applicant frequently returned home in an inebriated condition and subjected her to physical and verbal abuse, despite repeated e?orts by her and her family members to persuade him otherwise. It was also alleged that, while under the in@uence of intoxicants, the applicant subjected the respondent/wife to mental cruelty. Thereafter, it was alleged that the applicant left the respondent at her brother’s residence, namely Ratnesh Jain, situated at Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur. Consequently, the respondent ceased to cohabit with the applicant and started residing with her mother and brother. 4. The applicant has categorically denied all the allegations levelled by the respondent/wife and has speci:cally narrated the true and correct facts. 3 The applicant submits that the marriage was solemnized between the parties as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 09.05.1997. He has further emphasized that he has always lived with his mother and has been brought up with the best moral teachings, due to which he does not su?er from any substance abuse issues. It is further submitted that the respondent never shared cordial relations with the applicant’s mother and persistently made malicious attempts to compel the applicant to live separately from his mother. Upon the petitioner’s refusal to do so, the respondent herself initiated divorce proceedings by :ling an application for grant of divorce, registered as application No. 269/A/2002, which did not succeed and was ultimately dismissed by the learned Family Court on 21.07.2007. 5. The applicant further submits that he has always paid the educational fees of the children in a timely manner. It is also stated that the respondent voluntarily went to reside at her brother’s house of her own free will and refused to return to the matrimonial home despite several sincere e?orts made by the applicant. In this regard, the applicant even appeared before the National Lok Adalat on 13.05.2023 with the intention of taking the respondent back; however, the respondent failed to appear. The applicant further submits that he is residing with and taking care of his aged mother, who is a heart patient. Despite such responsibilities, the applicant has consistently borne all expenses relating to the upbringing and maintenance of all three children. 6. Learned Family Court passed the impugned order awarding a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present case is a classic example of misuse of the benevolent provisions contained under 4 Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the applicant. The learned Family Court misinterpreted the law relating to the grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and thereby committed an error of fact as well as of law. She submits that learned Family Court failed to dispose of the interim application within sixty days as mandated under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and further erred in directing payment of maintenance from the date of the application, i.e., 10.03.2022, resulting in an accumulation of arrears for a period of almost two years, through no fault of the applicant. She submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant had :led his aFdavit in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Another, wherein it has been categorically stated that the applicant is unemployed and has no regular source of income. She further submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent did not place on record any documentary evidence whatsoever in support of her allegation that the applicant earns Rs. 3,00,000/- per month. The present application :led under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is based on false and frivolous grounds and has been instituted solely with the intent to extort money from the applicant. Learned Family Court failed to disclose or de:ne the basis on which the income of the applicant was assessed while directing payment of Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. She further submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that prior to 10.03.2022, the respondent had never made any complaint regarding alleged harassment by the applicant or his family members, nor has she brought on record any cogent evidence to substantiate allegations of cruelty or abuse. The applicant is unable to pursue his livelihood in the 5 same manner as before due to his responsibility of taking care of his aged mother, who is a patient with serious cardiac ailments. Despite such constraints, the applicant has never neglected his family responsibilities and has always ensured the best possible standard of living for the respondent and the children. The applicant further bears the entire educational expenses of all his children. The respondent never intended to reside with the applicant and his mother, as is evident from the earlier divorce proceedings bearing Application No. 269/A/2002 :led by the respondent. Learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that the respondent is residing separately from the applicant without any suFcient or justi:able cause and is therefore guilty of wilful desertion, disentitling her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application :led under Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondents. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded the interim maintenance of Rs. 8000/- to the respondent No. 1. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 6 12. Let a certi:ed copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek