1 2025:CGHC:34628 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 489 of 2022 Dr. Kamal Das Manikpuri S/o Shri Pawan Das Manikpuri Aged About 34 Years R/o Near Shiv Koteshwar Mandir, Kota, Raipur, Police Station- Saraswati Nagar, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Kaummu Das @ Nisha Manikpuri W/o Dr. Kamal Das Manikpuri Aged About 32 Years Present Address- P-1, Kavita Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Prisha @ Shagun D/o Dr. Kamal Das Manikpuri Aged About 7 Years Through Natural Guardian Smt. Kaummu Das (Mother) R/o Kavita Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 29.06.2021 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in MJC No. 296/2015, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month each to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 05.05.20111 according to Hindu Rites and customs at Raipur C.G. A daughter, name prishu was born from the conjugal conjugation of both. The respondent No.1 (wife) has filed an application against the applicant for maintenance as Rs. 20000/- for her and her daughter per month under Section 125 of CrPC. After solemnized the marriage both of them resides happily for the period of few days. After only fifteen days the Husband used to misbehaving, ill treating and committed beating in the name of dowry of Car. At the time of marriage, a check of Rs. 51000/- was giving to buy a vehicle. the wife further alleged that the Husband used to beat her even during pregnancy. Than fed up this type of assault, the parents of wife took her to their parental house at Awanti Nagar, Raipur. After this, the wife registered a complaint in mahila thana Raipur accused Dr. Kamal Das Manikpuri (Husband) regarding demand of dowry on which the offence Section 498-A was registered in Mahila Police Station Raipur. The respondent is a quarrelsome lady and she did not perform the responsibility of married life and do not co-operate with the respondent and other family member of in-law. The respondent without informing to the respondent and other family member of in-laws she left the respondent went to her maternal house at Awanti Nagar Raipur. When the respondent went to the house of respondent then the applicant and mother, father of applicant denied sending the respondent. The Husband also filed the application of Section 9 of restoration of conjugal rights, in the Family Court Raipur. The applicant tried his best to settle the dispute along with respondent but the respondent without assigning any reason 3 residing separately. The applicant and his family members tortured to the respondent hence she left her Husband's house and she residing in her parental house and prayed before the trial court the maintenance amount as prayed Rs. 20000/- for applicant per month. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondents. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application of the respondents and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month each to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is without any appreciation of facts, and material available on record only on the basis of arbitrary manner, thus, the impugned order is completely illegal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that respondent (wife) is a graduate lady and by profession she is a Fashion Designer and running a boutique and earn Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, she is not entitled to get the maintenance from the applicant. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the 4 learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar