1 2025:CGHC:29584 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 76 of 2017 Smt. Shiv Kumari Verma W/o Darshram Kashayap Aged About 35 Years Caste- Verma, R/o Village- Ringni, Police Station- Shivrinarayan, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. Presently Reside- Village- Tundri, Post- Tundri , Tahsil- Bilaigarh , District- Baloda- Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Darashram Kashayap S/o Khobiram Kashyap Aged About 50 Years Caste Verma, R/o Village- Rigani, Police Station Shivrinarayan, Tahsil- Navagarh, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the Non- applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that the revision may be allowed KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 and the order impugned passed by the learned Family Court in M. Cri. Case No. 66/15 may be set-aside and the applicant would be granted 4000/- per month maintenance from the non-applicant, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant was married to the applicant on 13.06.2013 according to Hindu rites and social customs in Village Tundri. At the time of marriage, the applicant’s family had given all necessary household items according to their financial capacity. After marriage, she went to her matrimonial home to lead a conjugal life. For about two months, she lived there peacefully, but thereafter, the non-applicant and his family members began to abuse and assault her, alleging that she had brought insufficient dowry. The non-applicant and his family started demanding Rs. 50,000/- in cash and one acre of agricultural land. The applicant silently endured this harassment in the hope that their behavior would improve over time, but no such improvement occurred. On one occasion, the non-applicant and his uncle (father’s brother-in-law) allegedly tried to poison her with the intention to kill, but she somehow managed to survive. The applicant further stated in the application that on 15.10.2013, the non-applicant and his family members physically assaulted and threw her out of the house. She returned to her parental home, and since then, the non-applicant has made no contact or inquiry about her well-being. The applicant lodged a police complaint against the non-applicant and his uncle at Police Station Shivreenarayan for 3 harassment and dowry demand. The non-applicant has not been maintaining her. She has no source of income. Her father has passed away, and her family is financially weak and unable to support her. Due lack of financial hardship, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learne Family Court for grant of maintenance of Rs. 4000/- . It is further alleged that the non- applicant works as a mason and carpenter and earns Rs. 300/- per day from these occupations. Additionally, he owns two acres of double-crop agricultural land, from which he earns an annual income of Rs. 1,95,000/-. Thus, the non-applicant is financially capable and able to maintain the applicant. Therefore, the applicant has prayed that her application be allowed and that she be granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- from the non-applicant. 4. The Family Court concerned had sent a registered notice to the non-applicant to ensure his appearance in the proceedings. However, despite proper service of the registered notice, the non- applicant failed to appear on the hearing date i.e., 15.05.2015, due to which ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 05.06.2015, whereby it was directed the non-applicant/husband to pay a sum of Rs. 1200/- per month in favour of applicant and further ordered to bear Rs. 1000/- for proceedings expenses. Being aggrieved by the same, the non-applicant/husband preferred an application under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 05.06.2015 on the ground that an ex-parte order was passed against him and after 4 appreciating the same, the learned Family Court concerned vide order dated 27.02.2016, allowed the application filed by the non- applicant and directed that the matter recalled. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 4000/- from the non- applicant and thereafter, the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, passed the order dated 01.12.2016, whereby it has been rejected the application filed by the applicant. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred a revision before this Court for grant of maintenance and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.08.2017, granted towards maintenance of Rs. 1800/- per month to the applicant, till final adjudication of this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order of the learned Family Court is bad in the eye of law, further also does not fall well within four corners of the settled principal of law thus deserves to be set aside. The learned Family Court ought to have consider that the applicant is homely lady having no source of income whereas the non-applicant is a fully capable and having good sources of income from deferent sources. The learned Family Court ought to have consider that the applicant is the victim of second marriage & also It is important to mention that the non- applicant hiding / suppressing factum material fact of his first marriage that he already performed with Vimla, and suppressing the same the non-applicant performed second marriage with the applicant and this question was never been asked by the learned 5 court bellow. The case of the non-applicant was based upon the non performance of marriage where as it his own admission before the conciliation proceedings that he perform marriage to the applicant despite knowing the fact of alive of his first wife, thus it is also submitted that the non-applicant not only committed second marriage with intention to dowry but also to deceitfully deceive the applicant and force her to live all alone and face the financial hard ship as well. The learned Family Court ought to have consider that the non-applicant had not produce any material evidence in support of his first marriage, except oral submission. The learned Family Court ought to have consider that the applicant is living alone and she is not capable to maintain herself despite that the learned Family Court had rejected the prayer of maintenance of the applicant. That learned Family Court despite giving findings of admission of non-applicant that he perform marriage to the applicant does not consider the application of the applicant for grant of maintenance. There is finding of cruelty committed by the non- applicant during the stay of the applicant in the house of the non- applicant & have tortured the non-applicant & their relatives, giving ill-treatment, but even then learned court blindly rejected the application of the applicant for grant of maintenance. Therefore the order passed by the learned Family Court deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the concerned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that initially an application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family court concerned, seeking maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month from the non-applicant, after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 05.06.2015, wherein it was directed the non-applicant/husband to pay a sum of Rs. 1200/- per month in favour of applicant and further ordered to bear Rs. 1000/- for proceedings expenses. Being aggrieved by the same, the non- applicant/husband preferred an application under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 05.06.2015 on the ground that an ex-parte order was passed against him and after appreciating the same, the learned Family Court concerned vide order dated 27.02.2016, allowed the application filed by the non- applicant and directed that the matter recalled. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 4000/- from the non- applicant and thereafter, the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, passed the order dated 01.12.2016, whereby it has been rejected the application filed by the applicant on the ground that the applicant has failed to prove the monthly income fo the non-applicant with conclusive evidence. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred a revision before this Court for grant of maintenance and the Co-ordinate 7 Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.08.2017, granted towards maintenance of Rs. 1800/- per month to the applicant, till final adjudication of this revision. The impugned order reflects a just and fair assessment made by the Family Court upon appreciation of the material available on record. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Interim maintenance granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to the applicant on 16.08.2017 stands vacated. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal