1 2025:CGHC:36866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 265 of 2024 Vijay Bahadur Singh S/o Shri Keshav Singh Aged About 40 Years Profession Unemployed, R/o Village Ghorpura, Tehsil And District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) Permanent Address Krishna Nagar, Ward No. 51, In Front Of Madhubadi Pramod Niwasi, Old Dhamtari Road Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus Ekta Singh W/o Vijay Bahadur Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Kharripara, Mungeli, Tehsil And District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh ) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate. For Respondent : None Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this revision petition when the matter is called for hearing today. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “1.That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to MJC No. 86/2023 decided by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.29 19:34:51 +0530 2 Family Court, Mungeli, C.G. 2.That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set-aside/quash order dated 14.09.2023 passed by Family Court in MJC No. 86/2023 (Annexure P-1) and further be pleased quash the entire proceedings pursuant to the application filed by the respondent under section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. Any other relief reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner” 4. Brief facts of the case are the applicant and the respondent got married on 08.02.2014 at Kshatriya Samaaj Mangal Bhawan, Mungeli, as per Hindu rites and rituals. It was alleged that soon after the marriage, the respondent was subjected to cruelty by the applicant, and eventually, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court at Mungeli on 16.12.2014, which was registered as MJC No. 266/2014. 5. After service of summons, the applicant appeared before the Court and filed his reply, categorically denying all the allegations made in the application. He specifically submitted that the respondent did not want to reside with his joint family and insisted that he live separately in a different house. It was also submitted that on the night of 20.04.2014, 10- 15 members of the respondent’s family visited the applicant’s house, started quarreling and abusing the applicant and his family, took the respondent with them, and threatened to falsely implicate the applicant and his family under the dowry provisions. Against these threats, the applicant filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, 3 Chhattisgarh. Further, on 13.07.2014, the respondent’s father, along with other family members, again came to the applicant’s house, assaulted his father, and repeated their threats. Another complaint dated 14.07.2014 was submitted by the applicant’s father to the SHO, Tikrapara, Raipur. Therefore, it was prayed that the application under Section 125 be dismissed. 6. Learned Family Court, while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., held that even if the applicnat is unemployed, his family is capable of maintaining the respondent, and therefore he is liable to pay maintenance. The court also observed that although the respondent is educated and was earning before marriage, and even if she is still earning, she is entitled to live in accordance with the standard of living of her husband. 7. It is respectfully submitted that the learned Family Court, while acknowledging that the applicant is unemployed (based on unrebutted evidence submitted by the applicant), failed to appreciate that he is surviving on debts taken by his family. Despite this, the Family Court, vide order dated 30.10.2018, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent. 8. When the respondent’s demands were not satisfied, she filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. on 11.01.2022 seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount to Rs. 8,000/- per month, citing inflation and rising costs of living. This was registered as MJC No. 86/2023. Upon receiving summons, the petitioner appeared and filed a detailed reply, denying each and every allegation made by the respondent. A bare perusal of the application would reveal that it appears to have been drafted not for seeking a genuine enhancement, 4 but rather for extortion of a higher amount. The respondent merely stated that there is inflation and a rise in the cost of living, and also claimed an increase in the applicant’s income, but brought no evidence on record in support of these averments. Nowhere in the entire application has the respondent mentioned the specific difficulties she is facing in maintaining herself. No evidence was produced relating to her monthly expenses or to substantiate the claim that the applicant’s income or standard of living has increased. On oath, the respondent stated that she is pursuing studies and living in a rented accommodation. However, her own witness contradicted this by stating on oath that the respondent resides with her parents. Further, the respondent failed to produce any rent agreement or documentary evidence to support her claim of residing in a rented house or pursuing education. 9. The applicant filed a detailed reply, once again denying the respondent’s allegations and reiterating that he is unemployed. He specifically submitted that he lost his job at the hospital following the filing of a complaint under Section 498-A Cr.P.C. by the respondent, and since then, he has had no source of income. Nevertheless, the learned Family Court, without appreciating the fact of the applicant’s unemployment and without any supporting evidence from the respondent regarding her hardships or the alleged improvement in the applicant’s financial condition, passed the impugned order granting an enhanced maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month, which is excessive and passed without due consideration of the material placed on record. A copy of the petitioner’s reply to the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is enclosed herewith as Annexure P/4. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present case is a classic example of the misuse of the benevolent provisions contained 5 under Section 127 Cr.P.C., which has been grossly misused by the respondent. Learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the applicant. He submits that learned Family Court ought to have taken note of the fact that in the instant case, the respondent has failed to bring on record or prove the averments made by her in the application, or demonstrate that there has been any change in circumstances as required under the provisions of Section 127 Cr.P.C. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is unemployed and is living a miserable life, solely dependent on the limited resources of his family. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent is capable of maintaining herself, as she is educated and residing with her parents, whereas the applicant lost his employment due to the complaint filed under Section 498-A Cr.P.C. by the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the respondent (wife) has deserted the applicant without any reasonable cause, and therefore, in accordance with Section 125 Cr.P.C., no maintenance ought to have been awarded to her. Consequently, no enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C. could have been lawfully granted. He also submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has no source of income, which is evident from the affidavit filed by him before the Court, in compliance with the directions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that documentary evidence pertaining to the applicant’s retrenchment from service was very much on record. However, no cognizance was taken of the same, and instead, it was erroneously held that no documentary evidence was brought on record, thereby making the entire decision perverse. Learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that the respondent had neither pleaded 6 nor proved any change in circumstances in her application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement, nor did she plead that she is unable to maintain herself. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 12. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek