1 2025:CGHC:36854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 773 of 2023 Lokesh Kumar Dhruv S/o Baisakhu Dhruv Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Chhapora (Mandhar) Raipur (C.G.) Another Address - House Of Anil Yadav, Dada Kshatri Wali Gali, Gali, No. 4, Rajnagar, Part - 1, New Delhi ... Applicant versus Smt. Rameshwari @ Khusbu W/o Lokesh Kumar Dhruv Aged About 33 Years R/o Through Vishwanath Dhruv, Near Durga Mandir, New Shanti Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dhaneshwar Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29 .07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Cr. M.C.C. No.152/2021, whereby the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court for grant of the maintenance amount which has been partly allowed with direction to the applicant to pay amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between the applicant and PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.30 15:00:58 +0530 2 the respondent was solemnized on 23.04.2017 at Raipur. The couple has no children, and they are currently living separately. After marriage, the respondent stayed in her matrimonial home for about one month. During this period, she was allegedly harassed by her in-laws for dowry. Thereafter, the respondent moved to Delhi, where the applicant was working. However, she was again subjected to physical and mental harassment by her husband due to dowry demands. As a result, on 30.10.2020, the respondent called her brother to Delhi, and she returned with him to Raipur, arriving on 02.11.2020. Since then, she has been residing at her parental home. Although efforts were made to reconcile the parties, they were unsuccessful. The applicant is employed as a computer typist under the State Government Housing Commissioner’s Office in Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, and draws a monthly salary of ₹40,000/-. The applicant, in his reply, denied all allegations and submitted that neither he nor his family members harassed the respondent for dowry. He also stated that dowry is not a practice in their community. He contended that the respondent left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason and, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of her maintenance application. Based on the pleadings and evidence of both parties, the learned Family Court allowed the maintenance application and directed the applicant to pay ₹10,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse based on no reliable evidence. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is residing separately without there being any sufficient cause. The applicant is not capable to pay huge amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month, so regarding her maintenance. Hence, the impugned order is 3 illegal, and is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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, 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. 6. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti