1 2025:CGHC:36119 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 332 of 2020 Manoj Porte S/o Shri Bodh Singh Porte Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khadganv, Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh .. Applicant versus 1. Smt. Sahodra @ Sanjana Bai Porte W/o Manoj Porte Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Khadganv, Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, Present Resident Village Dadarkala, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh 2. Minor Dewang Singh Porte S/o Manoj Porte Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sahodra @ Sanjana Bai Porte, W/o Manoj Porte, R/o Village Khadganv, Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, Present Resident Village Dadarkala, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Jeet Patel, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. R.V. Rajwade, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jeet Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the the applicant. Also heard Mr. R.V. Rajwade, learned counsel, appearing for respondents. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.25 20:51:04 +0530 2 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 14.01.2020, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Korba, seeking maintenance, stating that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized according to their social rituals on 31.05.2017, and out of their wedlock, respondent No. 2 was born. It was further alleged by respondent No. 1 that the applicant, under the influence of his parents and sister, tortured and assaulted her in the name of dowry, and kept her ornaments in his possession. While she was pregnant, the applicant allegedly attempted to force her to consume medicine to abort the pregnancy and compelled her to leave the applicant’s house. 4. In defence, the applicant filed a reply before the learned Family Court, stating that after marriage, respondent No. 1 was residing at her matrimonial home but did not perform household work and frequently quarreled with the family members, using filthy language and pressurizing the applicant to live separately from his family. The applicant asserted that his family never demanded dowry nor subjected her to any physical assault. It was further stated that respondent No. 1 always suspected the applicant of having an illicit relationship with the daughter of his maternal uncle-in-law (Mama- Sasur), which was false, and that he never attempted to force her to 3 consume any medicine for abortion. It was also stated that respondent No. 1 is working as a tailor and earns approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month, which is sufficient for her and their son’s maintenance, and that the applicant has always been ready to keep the respondents with him. 5. After hearing both parties, vide impugned order dated 14.01.2020, the learned Family Court allowed the application of the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3,500/- per month to the respondents towards their maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 14.01.2020 is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, and therefore, liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents placed before it in their correct perspective, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant has always been ready to keep the respondent with him, and even today, the applicant is ready to keep the respondents with him. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent No. 01 herself left the house of the applicant without any sufficient reason. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is earning only about Rs. 4,000/- per month, and solely on the basis of assumptions, fixed the income of the applicant as Rs. 10,090/- per month, while ignoring the income earned by the respondent. He submits that learned Family Court failed to properly consider the averments made by the applicant supported by statements, and wrongly held that the applicant was treating the respondent with cruelty and that the applicant had never tried to bring 4 back the respondents. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondents had taken all the household articles belonging to the applicant’s family members, due to which the applicant is compelled to live without necessary household articles, whereas the respondents is living comfortably and in a much better position than the applicant by using those articles. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek