1 2025:CGHC:3648 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 484 of 2024 Himachal Verma S/o Naresh Kumar Verma Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Patharri Police Station Dongargaon, Tahsil Chhuriya, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant(s) versus Smt. Durga Verma W/o Himchal Verma, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Patharri, Police Station Dongargaon, Presently Residing At Village- Laxmanpur, Post, Police Station And Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G.). ( Now District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai). ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Dipak Diwakar, Advocate For Non-applicant : None present Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dipak Diwakar, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to call the record and allow this revision and set-aside the order dated 08.01.2024, in the interest of justice.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 14.05.2019 and after marriage they resided at village Patharri. The non-applicant alleged in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that after one month of the marriage, the applicant's family started cruelty that non-applicant is insane and further demanded dowry and always in-laws torture her for not bringing dowry. The non-applicant further pleaded that in the month of September 2020, the applicant committed marpit and left at village Laxmanpur. After 10-15 days, the relatives of the non- applicant taken away at village- Patharri and applicant's family assured not to repeat the ill- treatment but there is no change in the behavior of applicant's family due to which she left the house and went to her matrimonial house at Laxmanpur. The non-applicant further pleaded that she also complaint before the Police Station Chuikhadan on 07.08.2021 and on the basis of her complaint counseling was also conducted and in that counseling also the matter has not been settled. Due to the above circumstances the non- applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., sought maintenance amount of Rs 10,000/- per month before the learned Family Court. 4. The applicant herein filed reply to the application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and denied the averments made by the non-applicant. The applicant further stated that without any sufficient reason the non- applicant is living at village Laxmanpur separately and so many times the applicant went to village Laxmanpur but the matter has not been settled. The applicant further contended that the non- 3 applicant does not want to live with applicant and making false allegation. 5. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 08.01.2024, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month to the non-applicant/wife as maintenance. Hence this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court committed illegality because without sufficient cause the non- applicant is living separately and prima facie in the application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. her main contention regarding cruelty is that the in- laws torture the non-applicant that she is insane and also demanding dowry, but as per complaint submitted by non-applicant to Incharge officer Women Cell dated 19.08.2021 i.e. Ex. NA-03, she has not assigned any specific cause or reason to not live along with the applicant. On the contrary i.e. Ex. NA-1 letter dated 28.09.2020 submitted by the applicant about ill-treatment by the non-applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court committed gross illegality by not appreciating the evidence of non- applicant Smt. Durga Bai, who admitted in her cross examination that she was suffering from mental disease prior to marriage and further admitted that the present applicant also provided treatment after the marriage. The learned Family Court committed illegality that the version of non-applicant wife has not been supported by her own witnesses regarding cruelty and demand of dowry. Therefore, the learned Family Court has passed the maintenance 4 amount in higher side without considering the evidence of monthly income of the applicant. Therefore, the same is liable to be set- aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. 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.2500/- per month to the non-applicant as maintenance, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 9. 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.2500/- per month to the non-applicant, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court concerned has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. 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