The High Court reiterates that a wife must substantiate sufficient and reasonable cause for living separately, and mere uncorroborated allegations of cruelty or harassment are inadequate to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. This judgment upholds existing legal standards and serves as binding authority for trial courts and persuasive guidance for higher courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/1308/2025 of SMT. TILESHWARI SALAME Vs MANIK SALAME |
| CNR | CGHC010459702025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | REJECTED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble The Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh; persuasive for other courts |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure / Family Law (Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC when she fails to prove sufficient and reasonable cause to live separately, and when allegations of cruelty are not substantiated by reliable evidence? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court reaffirms that a wife seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC bears the burden to prove that her living separately is for a sufficient and reasonable cause. Where allegations of cruelty or dowry demand are not substantiated by reliable evidence (such as police complaints or medical reports), the claim for maintenance cannot succeed. The High Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the Family Court’s finding that the applicant failed to prove her case, as her allegations were not corroborated by evidence. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The applicant wife claimed maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC, alleging continuous harassment, neglect, and lack of financial support. She claimed the husband had sufficient means but failed to provide maintenance. The Family Court found her evidence insufficient to establish cruelty or sufficient cause for living separately and denied her maintenance. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate (trial and family) courts within Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | High Courts of other states and the Supreme Court |
| Follows | Existing legal standards under Section 125 CrPC regarding burden of proof and grounds for denial |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that mere allegations of cruelty or dowry demand do not entitle a wife to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC; such allegations must be substantiated with reliable evidence.
- The wife’s burden to prove sufficient and reasonable cause for living separately remains strict — unsupported assertions are inadequate.
- Maintenance applications are liable to be rejected if there is no corroboration (such as police reports or medical evidence) of cruelty or harassment.
- Lawyers must ensure tangible and reliable supporting evidence is presented to substantiate claims when seeking maintenance.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court perused the Family Court’s order and concurred with its conclusion that the applicant wife had failed to provide sufficient and reasonable cause for living separately.
- The Family Court’s factual findings noted that allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and physical mistreatment were not corroborated by police reports or medical evidence.
- In the absence of reliable corroborative material, the allegations remained unproven; hence, the claim for maintenance could not be sustained.
- The High Court found no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the Family Court’s approach and declined to interfere with the dismissal of the application.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Applicant Wife):
- The impugned order is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the evidence on record.
- The Family Court erred in not appreciating proof of harassment and ill-treatment, wrongly finding no sufficient cause for living separately.
- Pleadings and evidence were not properly assessed, resulting in an erroneous conclusion that she is not entitled to maintenance.
Respondent (Husband):
- Not represented; no arguments on record in the judgment.
Factual Background
The applicant and respondent, married in May 2019, are husband and wife. The applicant alleged ongoing harassment and neglect by the respondent, prompting her to live separately and file a maintenance claim of Rs. 7,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC. She claimed the respondent was financially capable but refused to support her. The Family Court, after evaluating evidence from both sides, dismissed her claim, leading to this revision.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was directly applied and analyzed.
- The judgment focused on interpretation of “sufficient and reasonable cause” for a wife to live separately from her husband as a condition for maintenance.
- The court clarified that such cause must be established with evidence, and uncorroborated allegations are insufficient.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions noted in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms and applies existing law and legal standards under Section 125 CrPC regarding burden of proof and evidentiary requirements for maintenance.