1 2025:CGHC:34601 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 757 of 2023 Anurag Dubey S/o Shri Balram Dubey, Aged About 27 Years R/o Near Government School, Sharma Kirana Dukan, P.S. And District Baloda Bazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus Smt. Sefali Dubey W/o Anurag Dubey, Aged About 23 Years R/o Bangali Colony, Mata Dawalalya Ward, Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.22 15:22:45 +0530 2 dated 19.05.2023 passed by Learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in M.C.R.C. No. 191/2022, in the interest of justice.” 3. As per the application filed by the respondent, the marriage between the applicant and the respondent took place on 11.12.2020 according to Hindu/social rituals, and after marriage, the respondent started residing at her matrimonial home at Balodabazar. It was stated that the parents of the respondent had given household items to the applicant as per their capacity at the time of marriage. The relationship between the parties was cordial for some time; however, later, the applicant and his family members started harassing her with demands for dowry. The applicant used to suspect her character and alleged that she was involved in an extramarital affair with another man. Although various social meetings were held, they were not fruitful. It was further stated that she belongs to a poor family and is not in a position to maintain herself, whereas the applicant is in private service and is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month; therefore, she should be awarded Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance. 4. After the service of notice, the applicant marked his presence and, except for admitting the marriage, refuted all other claims made in the application. It was submitted that the respondent has been residing separately without sufficient reason for more than two years. It was further stated that after the marriage on 11.12.2020, the respondent returned to her parental home to perform rituals, and during that period, she performed a marriage with one Anil Mishra on 23.12.2020 at Mauli Mandir, Bhatapara. Thereafter, she returned to her matrimonial house and started inflicting physical and mental cruelty upon the present applicant for two years. It was also submitted that the respondent was in 3 a love affair with Anil Mishra, and within ten days of her marriage, she married him on 23.12.2020 at Mauli Mandir, Bhatapara. The learned trial Court erred in ignoring that immediately after the marriage, the respondent started harassing the present applicant and his family members due to her past relationship, and on 16.03.2021, she attempted to commit suicide only to pressurize the present applicant and his family members. Consequently, a social meeting was held on 23.03.2021, and in the presence of senior members and family members of both families, a document for divorce by mutual consent was executed, and she has been living separately since then. 5. Learned Family Court after hearing both the parties and after perusal of the documents placed on record awarded Rs. 2500/- to the respondent ignoring that the respondent is residing separately without any sufficient reason. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the law as well as the facts available on record. He submits that learned Family Court erred in ignoring that the respondent has been residing separately without any sufficient reason for more than two years after the execution of a document for mutual consent in the presence of senior members of society and family members of both parties. He also submits that the respondent was in a love affair with one Anil Mishra, and ten days after her marriage, she performed a marriage with him on 23.12.2020 at Mauli Mandir, Bhatapara. Learned Family Court erred in ignoring that immediately after the marriage, the respondent started harassing the present applicant and his family members due to her past relationship and attempted to commit suicide on 16.03.2021 only to pressurize the present applicant and his family members. Consequently, a social 4 meeting was held on 23.03.2021, and in the presence of senior members and family members of both families, a document for divorce by mutual consent was executed, and she has been living separately since then. He further submits that the respondent left the company of the present applicant when the mother of the applicant was bedridden, and no other female member was available to take care of her. Therefore, the present applicant had to close his shop, and at present, he is facing financial hardship and is living hand-to-mouth. Learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent is an educated lady who is mentally and physically fit and has admitted in her statement that she is working as a teacher at Devalaya Primary School, Bhatapara, therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be dismissed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers 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