Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:47522 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1141 of 2025 Smt. Esha Dewangan @ Yesha W/o Tankeshwar @ Pankaj Dewangan Aged About 26 Years Present R/o Village- Semra (Sihawa), Post- Semra, Police Station- Sihawa, Tehsil and District- Dhamtari, C.G. versus ... Applicant Tankeshwar @ Pankaj Dewangan S/o Ghurau Ram Dewangan Aged About 36 Years Assistant Manager, Industries Department, House No. 346, Gopil Nagar Rudri, Post and Police Station- Rudri, Tehsil and District- Dhamtari, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.09.2025 PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.17 14:16:40 +0530 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.150/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has dismissed the application of the applicant filed under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of maintenance. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. The 2 application was based on the grounds that the applicant married the respondent on 23.02.2023 at Village Semra (Sihawa) according to customary rites. Immediately after the marriage, the respondent began abusing her, alleging that her parents failed to provide adequate household items and meet monetary demands made by his family. The respondent and his family demanded dowry, and upon her refusal, subjected her to further abuse. A societal meeting was convened, during which the respondent and his family refused to accept her. The respondent is a government servant earning approximately Rs.1,25,000 per month. The applicant sought maintenance of Rs.25,000 per month. 3. The respondent filed a reply denying all allegations, alleging that the applicant and her family had threatened him. He also stated that the applicant failed to respond to his petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and questioned her character. During the trial, both parties were examined. The applicant deposed that she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his family. In his cross-examination, the respondent admitted that a criminal case under Section 498A IPC is pending against him. Despite the evidence, the Learned Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant was residing separately without sufficient reason, based on her cross-examination where she stated she did not wish to return to live with the respondent. It is submitted that the applicant had filed a complaint at Police Station Sihawa, leading to registration of FIR No. 104/2024 under Section 498A IPC. The matter is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagri, District 3 Dhamtari (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 666/2024, which is currently at the stage of prosecution evidence. The complaint was filed on 07.06.2024, and the FIR was registered on 13.09.2024. The maintenance application was filed on 06.11.2024. The respondent had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Dhamtari, registered as HM Case No. 115A/2024, but later withdrew the same on 01.07.2025, stating that restitution of conjugal rights was not possible. The applicant has also filed a case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagri, Dhamtari (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 709/2025. The respondent's deposition before the Trial Court confirms that the criminal case under Section 498A IPC was brought to the Court's notice. Even paragraph 14 of the judgment notes that the FIR was placed on record by the respondent himself. The Trial Court erroneously held that the mere pendency of a criminal case under Section 498A IPC does not constitute sufficient reason for the applicant to live separately. The respondent is a government employee, working as Deputy Director in the Industries Department, earning a gross salary of Rs.1,12,000 and a net salary of Rs.95,000 per month. Therefore, the Trial Court erred in denying maintenance on the ground that the applicant is living separately without sufficient cause. The impugned judgment and order are illegal, perverse, and contrary to law, and are liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in concluding that the applicant's separation from the 4 respondent was without sufficient cause. The applicant was compelled to live separately due to continued mental cruelty and harassment, including persistent dowry demands made by the respondent and his family. There has been a blatant violation of the settled legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh v. Neha. The denial of maintenance to the applicant not only disregards binding precedent but also infringes upon her legal rights and protections under law. The emotional and financial distress suffered by the applicant as a result of the respondent’s conduct has been completely overlooked by the Family Court. The respondent is the sole earning member, drawing a substantial monthly salary, and the learned Court failed to strike a fair balance while considering the grant of maintenance to the financially dependent applicant. The impugned order is perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to law, particularly in its misapplication of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Family Court failed to interpret and apply the provision in its true letter and spirit. Furthermore, only statutory deductions are permissible under law when determining income for maintenance purposes. The learned Family Court erroneously accepted voluntary deductions without proper scrutiny, thus reducing the respondent’s apparent capacity to pay maintenance. Lastly, in view of the pending criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC, it is unreasonable and unjust to expect the applicant to reside with the respondent. There is clear evidence of cruelty, and the law does not require a wife to continue cohabitation under such circumstances. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that to claim maintenance, it must be proven that the wife is living separately for sufficient and reasonable cause. In this case, the applicant has failed to establish such cause. The record shows that on 18.05.2024, the applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home to reside with her parents. Despite the respondent's efforts, including filing a Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act petition and approaching community elders, the applicant refused to return. She has neither initiated any proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights nor shown intent to resume marital life. Instead, she has admitted to living separately of her own free will. Accordingly, her separation lacks sufficient justification, and she is not entitled to maintenance from the respondent. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti