1 2025:CGHC:41302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 666 of 2024 Manoj Sonkar S/o Shri Girijanand Sonkar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Gadhsivni, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Neha Sonkar W/o Manoj Sonkar Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Kathadih, Police Station Mujgahan, Tahsil and District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. C.R.Sahu, Advocate.s Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 19.04.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal M.C.C No. 04/2023, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the non-applicant, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.7,000/- per month to the non- applicant/wife. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.18 15:08:31 +0530 2 2. The facts, in brief, is that the the parties were married on 13.07.2021 at Village Katadih, Raipur (C.G.), following Hindu rites and rituals. They are husband and wife. The non-applicant has alleged that prior to marriage, she was informed through various sources that the applicant earns Rs. 6,50,000/- per month. She was also assured that she could continue her studies at Dhamtari if she wished. She further claimed that her family gave dowry beyond their capacity, but within a week of marriage, the applicant and his family began treating her with cruelty, compelling her to work in the fields. It is further alleged that the applicant and his family demanded Rs. 10 lakhs for her to continue living in the house. The applicant allegedly abused and assaulted the non-applicant, leading to a deterioration of her mental health, and she even attempted suicide, from which she was saved by the applicant's aunt. The non-applicant also alleged that the applicant asked her parents to take her back, after which community elders intervened. On 10.10.2021, she experienced pain and was given medicine by the applicant, which allegedly resulted in a miscarriage. This was conveyed to her father on 11.10.2021 by the president of the Sonkar Society. Further, when her health declined, her mother and grandmother visited, but were allegedly quarreled with by the applicant and his family. The non-applicant was then ousted from the house, and her ring and mangalsutra were forcibly taken, leading to further mental distress, for which she was admitted to Dhanvantri Hospital, Raipur. On 14.04.2022, when members of the Sonkar Society tried to return her to her in-laws’ house, the applicant refused to accept her. A meeting was later held 3 on 17.04.2022 at Gadhsivani, convened by the non-applicant’s father, where she was advised to live with the applicant. A month later, another meeting was held by the applicant’s family, in which it was decided that the parties should live separately. On 24.05.2022, the applicant took the non-applicant to Bhatgaon, and on the way back to Katadih, he left her midway. Her family later escorted her to Gadhsivani, but the applicant and his family again refused to accept her. He also refused to take her back during counseling sessions held on the basis of her complaint at the Mahila Police Station. Based on these allegations, the non-applicant sought Rs. 1,00,000/- per month as maintenance. 3. In response, the applicant denied the allegations and submitted that the non-applicant’s family was fully aware of his financial condition at the time of marriage. He claimed to work as a laborer under a tiles contractor, earning only Rs. 300/- per day, with a monthly income of Rs. 5,000 to 6,000. He further alleged that the non-applicant refused to perform household work, stayed confined to her room, and claimed she was raised with great care and would not engage in domestic duties. Due to her mental condition, she behaved irrationally and frequently threatened suicide without any reason. She also pressured the applicant to separate from his parents and live with her in Dhamtari. The applicant alleged that the non- applicant would get angry over trivial matters and disrespected his family. During one meeting, she allegedly broke her bangles and threw utensils in the kitchen. When the applicant later went to her paternal home to bring her back, her mother and grandmother 4 insisted that she would return only if he lived separately from his parents. Even after he returned with society members, she refused to accompany him. The applicant convened another meeting, where the non-applicant was advised to live in a joint family, but her family took her back to her paternal home. During counseling, the applicant maintained his willingness to live with her, but only within the joint family setup. Based on these rival contentions, the trial Court framed two points for determination and, vide impugned order dated 19.04.2024, partly allowed the application. The applicant was directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), is contrary to law, facts, and the circumstances of the case. A perusal of the order reveals that the Family Court based its findings on unfounded and uncorroborated grounds. The Court failed to properly balance the applicant’s income, liabilities, and the genuine needs of the non-applicant. Inferences were drawn without due consideration of the evidence on record, and the legal principle that admitted facts do not require further proof was not appreciated. Facts that were not denied by the parties should have been treated as admitted. The learned Family Court also ignored various pieces of documentary and oral evidence presented in favor of the applicant, without offering any basis for doing so. Despite ample evidence indicating the applicant’s financial incapacity, the Court failed to take it into account. It erroneously concluded that all facts 5 required proof at trial, even when there was sufficient material already on record to evaluate the financial aspects of the case. Furthermore, the Family Court overlooked the fact that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are quasi-civil and quasi-criminal in nature, where facts are to be established not beyond reasonable doubt but based on the preponderance of probabilities. Several facts admitted by the non-applicant during evidence were not given proper weight or consideration without justification. The applicant is also burdened with the ongoing medical expenses of his ailing mother. Moreover, no police complaint was ever lodged by the non- applicant or her father regarding the alleged dowry demands or cruelty, which casts doubt on the credibility of those allegations. The applicant consistently maintained that he is a daily wage laborer, earning only Rs. 300/- per day, with work not being available regularly. He resides in a rented accommodation in Dhamtari, paying Rs. 2,000/- per month, and bears his own living expenses. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal M.C.C No. 04/2023, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the non-applicant, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.7,000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife, and 6 he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the non- applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the non-applicant, 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 be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti