1 2025:CGHC:35734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 288 of 2023 Narendra Dahariya S/o Shri Sirotan Dahiriya Aged About 30 Years R/o Banagbod, Palari, Police Station Palari, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Ishwari Dahariya W/o Narendra Dahariya Aged About 30 Years Present Address - Ward No.17, Ravan Bhata, Kesla, Kharora Raipur, Tahsil Kharora, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Galib Dwivedi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.07.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the record and set aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the learned Court, Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur (C.G.) passed in Criminal M.C.C No. 307/2020 and revision petition may be allowed in the interest of justice.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and non-applicant are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 29.05.2019 according to hindu rites and customs at Village Banagbod, Palari, District- Balodabazar (C.G.). Thereafter, both of them resides happily for the period of only 15 days and after only fifteen days the applicant (Husband) used to misbehaving, ill treating with the Non-applicant/wife. He used to press and torture for dowry. The applicant has sent her parents house. Thereafter, non-applicant without informing to the applicant and other family member of in-laws she left the applicant house within 15 days of marriage and went to her parental home. The applicant and non- applicant faced counseling in between them but applicant’s wife denied in counseling, she will not compromise with him. Thereafter, the report was lodged by the non-applicant against the applicant. The applicant and non-applicant are Hindu and they govern by Hindu caste custom. When the applicant wants to solve the matter for better life of marriage but she do not want to reside with the applicant. The applicant tried his best level to settle the dispute along with non-applicant but the non-applicant without assigning any reason residing separately. According to the case of the non- applicant before the Family Court concerned that the applicant and his family members tortured the non-applicant hence, she left her Husband's house and she residing in matrimonial house and due to lack of financial hardship, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the applicant/husband for grant of maintenance of Rs. 7000/- per month. 3 3. In his reply, the applicant has denied the allegations made by the non-applicant and stated that in the Satnami community, there is no custom of giving or taking dowry during or after marriage. At no point did he or his family demand a motorcycle or ₹1,00,000/- as dowry, nor did they ever treat the applicant with cruelty. The non- applicant, just 15 days after the marriage, allegedly created disputes insisting on going to her parental home and even threatened to file false cases against the applicant and his family. Fearing her threats, he dropped her at her parental home. The non- applicant took all her belongings and “Stridhan” with her. When the applicant went to bring her back, she refused to return, insulted him, and spoke of divorce. Later, he kept requesting her to resume marital life, but she consistently refused. Before marriage itself, the non-applicant had lodged a complaint at Mahila Thana, Raipur on 27/05/2019, showing her intent to falsely implicate the applicant and his family. After just 15 days of marriage, she has been living separately without valid reason. A counseling session was also conducted by Mahila Thana on 16/11/2019, where she admitted she had been living away from her husband for four months and did not wish to live with him. 4. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 24.02.2023, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife as maintenance and further ordered to bear Rs. 2000/- for litigation expenses. Hence this revision petition. 4 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the income of applicant is wrongly assessed. Applicant had specifically denied the suggestion, that his monthly income is Rs. 13000/-. That non-applicant (wife) is post graduate lady and by profession she is a ladies tailor and earned 500 to 1000/- Rs per day. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant without any reason she is separately residing in her matrimonial house and left the house of applicant further the learned Family Court has passed the maintenance amount in higher side without considering the evidence of monthly income of the applicant. Therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicant has succeeded in proving her application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, monthly income of the applicant and other expenses, the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month to the non-applicant as maintenance, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month to the non-applicant, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed 5 any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal