1 2025:CGHC:29579 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 344 of 2016 Sardar Gurmel Singh Saini S/o Late Gurcharan Singh Saini Aged About 46 Years R/o Near Gurunanak Hall, Gurunanak Nagar, Farmer House, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Jasbeer Kaur Saini W/o Sardar Gurmel Singh Saini Aged About 50 Years R/o Guru Govind Nagar, 9/1, City Station, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Police Station Civil Lines. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan holding the brief of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01 /07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sumit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, learned counsel, holding the brief of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.01.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.82/2010, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the non-applicant married on July 7, 2002, following Sikh traditions, after the demise of their previous spouses. The marriage was arranged through mediators, with an understanding that the respondent’s daughter would live with them, and the applicant would provide for her education, marriage, and maintenance. In return, the respondent would care for the applicant's sons and serve his parents. However, disputes arose when the applicant pressured the respondent to send her daughter to her parental home. He became violent over minor issues, eventually forcing the daughter out of the house. The applicant restricted communication, even breaking the respondent’s mobile phone. He refused to provide maintenance for the respondent and her daughter, demanding that she bring money from her parental home. The respondent faced significant hardships, leading her to file a report at the Women’s Police Station in Raipur on September 18, 2007. Despite counseling efforts, the applicant failed to cooperate, and a criminal case is pending in court. The applicant allegedly demanded Rs.10 lakh and a flat from the respondent’s first husband's estate, subjecting her to cruelty. The applicant is described as a wealthy individual 3 with multiple income sources, including dairy farming, agriculture, money lending, and investments. He is an income taxpayer (HUF) and owns significant properties, including land in several villages, houses, shops, and vehicles. In contrast, the respondent has no independent income and relies on her elderly parents and disabled brother. She seeks Rs.25,000/- per month in maintenance from the applicant, claiming she was abandoned without cause. Thereafter, the applicant filed reply denying all the averments and claims, claimed by the respondent. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the Family Court erred in appreciating the fact that since the marriage between the parties hasn't been conclusively proven. The court relied on Hindu rites and rituals, whereas the alleged marriage followed Sikh traditions, specifically the "Chunni" ceremony, which the applicant argues doesn't constitute a valid marriage under Sikh customs (Anand Karj). He further contends that without strong evidence proving the marriage, the respondent is not entitled to maintenance. The Family Court failed to consider the nuances of Sikh traditions and wrongly assumed the marriage's validity. The applicant presented evidence and witnesses showing that only a "Chunni" tradition took place, not a formal marriage, which was even admitted by the respondent and her witnesses. He also 4 submits that the Family Court failed to consider the applicant's financial struggles. The applicant owns only 19.62 acres of land, burdened with loans and increasing interest. Despite the respondent's claims of multiple income sources, the applicant denies these allegations. The applicant faces health issues, including diabetes, high blood pressure, and blood piles, which incur significant medical expenses. Given his financial responsibilities, loan repayments, and personal/family maintenance costs, the awarded maintenance amount is deemed excessive. Moreover, the respondent is an advocate earning over Rs.40,000/- monthly from her practice and rental income. As a well-educated individual with multiple income streams in Raipur, she is capable of supporting herself. Therefore, the applicant argues that the respondent is not entitled to maintenance, and the Family Court's order should be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 5 filed by the respondent and directed the pay Rs.20,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing the evidence of respondent, which clearly demonstrates that the applicant has substantial income and multiple properties. Despite being directed to produce his income tax returns, capital account, and balance sheet for both himself and his HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) on July 6, 2015, he failed to comply even after multiple opportunities. Consequently, on September 11, 2015, it was ordered that an adverse inference could be drawn against him for non-compliance. The evidence on record conclusively establishes that the applicant has sufficient means and income. His deliberate failure to produce the ordered documents suggests an attempt to conceal his true income. Furthermore, his witness avoided addressing the capital account and balance sheet during testimony. Thus, it is proven that the applicant is financially capable and can afford to pay maintenance to the respondent. Considering the applicant's lifestyle, standard of living, and the cost of living, the Family Court concluded that the respondent is entitled to maintenance. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 6 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 trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil