2026:CGHC:5827 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1291 of 2024 Smt. Vinita Pandey W/o Rakesh Pandey Aged About 52 Years R/o Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Presently R/o Ram Gopal Tiwari, Ward, No. 1, Pathakpara, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant(s)

versus Rakesh Pandey S/o Jhumuklal Pandey R/o Champa, District Janjgir-

Champa, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

02 /02/2026

1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.12/2013, whereby the application filed by the applicant / wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month was dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision according to the applicant are that the applicant was married to the respondent on 02.06.1996 and after marriage resided in the matrimonial home, however, soon after marriage she was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty by the respondent, resulting in registration of an offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC in the year 1999, wherein the respondent was found guilty and fined, followed by proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act in 2007, and further a serious criminal case under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC in 2012 on the allegation that the respondent attempted to kill the applicant by administering poison mixed in sweets, thereafter, with a mala fide intention to harass and defame her, the respondent lodged a false complaint alleging adultery against the applicant and one Mr. G.P. Patel, from which the applicant was discharged on 14.08.2012, and the case against the said Mr. Patel was also dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2018, thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 29.01.2013 seeking maintenance for herself and her two minor children, whereunder maintenance was granted only to the children and the applicant’s claim was rejected vide order dated 15.12.2015, which rejection was upheld in revision on 28.09.2016 and thereafter by the High Court on 28.08.2023 in CRMP No.1293/2016, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal Diary No. 49667/2023) vide order dated 03.01.2024 allowed the SLP and directed reconsideration of the issue of maintenance, despite the said directions, after transfer of the matter to the Family Court, Mungeli, the learned Family Court again rejected the applicant’s claim vide impugned order dated 09.10.2024 on grounds already disapproved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, ignoring that false allegations on the character of the wife and continuous cruelty constitute sufficient cause to live separately, and further ignoring that the respondent is a Government employee owning about 10 acres of agricultural land with earning more than Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum, whereas the applicant has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself. Hence, the present revision challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned order dated

09.10.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court gravely erred in law in holding that the applicant was residing separately without sufficient cause, ignoring the settled legal position that false and defamatory allegations of adultery against a wife strike at her dignity and character and constitute a valid and sufficient ground to live separately, as no wife can reasonably be expected to reside with a husband who has publicly accused her of unchastity. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant was discharged from the offence of adultery, and the allegations against the alleged co-accused also stood dismissed, yet the learned Court relied upon the said false allegations to deny maintenance