1 2025:CGHC:30949 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 898 of 2019 Mohanlal Kurre S/o Ram Prasad Kurre Aged About 24 Years Caste - Satnami, R/o Village - Lokhan, Post And Police Station - Kunda, Tahsil - Pandaria, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Kajal D/o Shyamdas Banjare Aged About 20 Years W/o Mohanlal Kurre, Caste - Satnami, Occupation - Cultivator, R/o Village - Lokhan, Post And Police Station - Kunda, Tahsil - Pandaria, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Ward No. 17, Mini Mata Chowk, Khuntu Road, Kawardha, Tahsil - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.07 19:16:20 +0530 2 “ It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 18.07.2018, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case that the respondent herein filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Kawardha, seeking maintenance from the applicant. The respondent submitted that she was in a love relationship with the applicant, and due to this, they performed a love marriage on 24.02.2017. After the marriage, the respondent went to her matrimonial house to perform her matrimonial obligations, but after some time, the applicant subjected her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry, and in this regard, he also beat her. Due to this, on 04.04.2017, she went to her parental house, and on 06.04.2017, she lodged a report at City Kotwali, Kawardha, where a compromise took place during mediation. After the compromise, she again went to her matrimonial house, but after some time, the applicant and his family members again subjected her to cruelty for dowry demands and pressed her neck, due to which she became unconscious. The parents of the respondent took her to her parental house and provided treatment, and since then, she has been residing there. It was further submitted that the applicant is having agricultural land and sufficient sources of income, but despite this, he is not paying any maintenance to her. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month. 4. After service of notice, the applicant filed his reply, denying the allegations except for the admitted facts. He submitted that the 3 respondent was living with him in a live-in relationship and that there was no valid marriage between them. Since the respondent was in a live-in relationship, the question of dowry demand and harassment does not arise, and the report lodged by the respondent is false. The applicant further contended that he is a labourer, is barely able to maintain himself, and has no agricultural land. In fact, it was submitted that the parents of the respondent have agricultural land and are in a better financial position than the applicant. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. 5. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 18.07.2018, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 18.07.2018 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, it is liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that there is no valid marriage between the applicant and the respondent. He submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent was living with the applicant in a live-in relationship, and therefore, she has not acquired the status of a legally wedded wife of the applicant, hence she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the applicant. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that, according to the case of the respondent herself, there was a love marriage between her and the applicant, and in such circumstances, the question of demand of dowry does not arise. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent stayed in the house of the applicant for a few days and thereafter, left the applicant’s house on her own and has been residing separately at 4 her parental house, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. He submits that Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the parents of the respondent have agricultural land and are in a better financial position than the applicant, and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is living separately without any reasonable cause, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. He also submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has always been ready and willing to keep the respondent with him, but the respondent herself left her matrimonial home and did not return despite several efforts made by the applicant. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent, opposes the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek