Smt. Mandakini Tiwari Muniya v. Mahesh Tiwari

: Mr. Ashwin Panickar, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board

12.08.2025

#1. Heard Mr. Ashwin Panickar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the Non- applicant.

#2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “The applicant humbly and most respectfully prays that the Hon'ble court may kindly be please to set aside judgment dated 24/02/2024 passed in Mis, Criminal Case 60/2022 2 parties namely Smt Mandakini Tiwari Vs Mahesh Tiwari and further please toward maintenance amount as per the application of the applicant/wife in the interest of justice.”

#3. Facts of the case are that that the marriage between applicant namely Smt Mandakini Tiwari and non-applicant namely Mahesh Tiwari was solemnized on 21st June 2018 as per the hindu rituals. After few days of marriage, the husband and wife lived normally, however subsequently the husband started to misbehave with the applicant and demanded dowry. The husband regularly consumed alcohol and committed violence with the applicant/wife. The applicant had also filed police complaint against her husband with respect to the same for offence under Section 294, 323 was registered against the husband by Mahila Thana, Raipur (C.G). The Non-applicant is an alcoholic person and used to beat his wife aggrieved by which the wife complained before the police help line number "dial 112" on 19/12/2019 and left her matrimonial house, since then she has been residing at her parental house and even after leaving her matrimonial house, the husband continued to harass her through phone calls and text messages, the husband doubted the chastity of the wife and everyday over phone call used to abuse the wife using filthy language, the husband used to video call the wife in a half naked position and sent obsene text messages the entire evidence and recording of video call voice calls text messages was submitted by the wife in the pen drive before the Family Court. When the applicant/wife had left her matrimonial house, immediately thereafter the non-applicant/husband preferred 3 application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal rights on false ground, that in the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act the husband was able to obtain an ex-parte decree and subsequently filed an application of execution of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter the wife has filed an application under order 9 rule 13 of CrPC for setting aside ex-parte decree of restitution of Conjugal rights which is still pending before the Learned Family Court Raipur. The applicant has also filed a Transfer Petition before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court for transfer of proceedings from Family Court Raipur to Family Court District- Janjgir Champa in which notices have been issued by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24/07/2023. The non-applicant consumes alcohol regularly and physically tortures the applicant. Due to the act of the non- applicant and lack of financial hardship, an application has been filed further non-applicant works at HDFC bank and earns around Rs 35,000/- per month and on the other hand applicant is a house wife and is having no source of income.

#4. In support of her case, the applicant/wife had examined herself as (PW-1), Chandani Shukla ( P.W-2) and Vikram Thakur as (P.W -3). Whereas husband/Non-applicant had examined himself as (DW-1) and Indu Tiwari as (DW-2).

#5. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court has passed an order dated 24.02.2024, whereby rejected the application of the applicant on the ground that she has failed to prove her case further without any sufÏcient cause 4 she is residing separately, therefore she is not entitled for maintenance amount. Hence, this revision.

#6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the vital fact that remedy of maintenance is a measure of Social Justice as envisaged under the constitution to prevent wives and children from failing into destitution and vagrancy. He further submits that the findings and the reasoning adopted by the Learned Family Court with regard to sufÏcient cause is erroneous and contrary to the statutory stipulation as provided under Section 125 of CrPC. It is no more res-integra that plea of neglect and ill treatment is not required to be established beyond reasonable doubt and such plea can be established by prepondenrance of probabilities. He also submits that the husband has admitted in his examination that wife has suffered injuries because of his thick metal ring @ bracelet worn in hand, and same has been recorded in para 12 of the impugned judgment, however learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the same. That non-applicant has further admitted that his mother has assured the wife/applicant, that husband /non-applicant has stopped consuming alcohol, which clearly established that husband was an alcoholic person. He further submits that her husband admitted in his cross examination that he has sent text messages to the wife, the aforementioned text messages were marked as Article a-1 before the Family Court and all the text messages were abusive and filthy, therefore it is a clear case of cruelty committed by the husband. The learned Family Court has totally ignored the 5 admissions made by the husband in his cross examination before the Family Court. Merely because an ex-parte decree of Restitution of Conjugal rights has been passed in favour of husband does not absolve him of the liability to maintain his wife, that wife has filed an application for setting aside the Ex-parte Decree, which is still pending before the Learned Family Court Raipur. There was an FIR also registered against the husband for offence under Section 294 and 323 which is sufÏcient to show that he has committed cruelty against the wife and it is settled position of law that mere decree of restitution of conjugal rights is not sufÏcient to deny maintenance to legally wedded wife, moreover the conduct of the husband is sufÏcient to show that he has committed cruelty and at present cost of living has increased and therefore the maintenance amount needs to be suitably awarded. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

#7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rightly passed the order, in which no interference is called for.

#8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

#9. Considering the evidence and overall circumstances of the case, the Family Court has rightly held that the applicant failed to establish the essential prerequisites for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the absence of such 6 proof, the applicant cannot be deemed entitled to maintenance. The Family Court, upon a thorough examination of the pleadings and the evidence on record, has arrived at a well-reasoned, lawful, and justified conclusion in dismissing the claim for maintenance.

#10. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court.

#11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

#12. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal