1 2025:CGHC:38438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 899 of 2019 Sonu Saluja D/o Late Harbhajan Singh Saluja Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Karrapara, Bagbahara, Police Station- Bagbahara, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. .. Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Harpreet Kaur Saluja W/o Sonu Saluja Aged About 30 Years R/o Through Harbhajan Singh Ajmani, Near Old Police Station, Ward No. 7, Takhatpur, Police Station- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jasleen Kaur Saluja S/o Sonu Saluja Aged About 2 Years Miner Natural Guardian Mother Namly Smt. Harpreet Kaur Saluja, R/o Through Harbhajan Singh Ajmani, Near Old Police Station, Ward No. 7, Takhatpur, Police Station- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 08.05.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.706/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent No.1 Smt. Harpreet Kaur Saluja, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, against the applicant. The application alleged that the applicant and the respondent No.1 were married on December 4, 2015, according to Hindu customary rights. After the marriage, the respondent No.1 claimed that she was harassed by the applicant and his mother for dowry, and she was forced to live with her parents. The applicant allegedly did not inquire about her well-being or provide financial support. Given the applicant's financial capacity as the owner of a wholesale fancy store, the respondent sought maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. On June 22, 2017, the respondent filed an application for interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The applicant submitted his reply to the application under Section 125 of the CrPC. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, allowed the application and granted maintenance to the respondent by way of an order dated May 8, 2019. The applicant has now filed a petition challenging this order. Family Court after considering all 3 the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, noted in paragraph 9 that the applicant submitted a document, specifically an affidavit from one Narendra Saluja, stating that the applicant works as a salesman in Narendra Saluja's shop and earns approximately Rs. 4,500 per month. The affidavit also mentioned the GST number of the firm, which indicated that Narendra Saluja is the sole proprietor of the fancy store. A copy of the affidavit dated September 18, 2018, has been filed and marked as Annexure A-4. He further submits that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC against the applicant on June 16, 2018. However, during her deposition, she denied the allegations in the complaint, as noted by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, in paragraph 19 of the order dated May 8, 2019. Additionally, the respondent did not cooperate with the counseling process initiated by the Mahila Cell, District Mahasamund, and instead filed an application to stop the counseling, indicating her unwillingness to reside with the applicant. The applicant, on the other hand, was willing to live with the respondent and participated in the counseling. He also submits that the applicant claims that the respondent abandoned him without reasonable cause and is therefore not entitled to maintenance. Furthermore, the respondent is an advocate 4 practicing at the District Court, Mungeli, since 2011, and is capable of maintaining herself. In contrast, the applicant is a salesman earning only Rs. 4,500 per month, making it difficult for him to pay maintenance to the respondent, who is more educated and earns more than him. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that the respondents are wife and son of the applicant and from the available evidence, which indicates that the applicant's source of income is from business/trade, and his monthly income appears to be more than approximately Rs. 15,000. Consequently, it is proven that the applicant is a person of sufficient means. In the present case, the applicant has failed to present any credible evidence to prove that the wife, respondent No. 1, Smt. Harpreet, is consistently engaged in the legal profession and earning a regular income from it. In paragraph 5 of his brief statement, the applicant has himself stated that the wife practiced law for only two years. Furthermore, respondent No. 1, Smt. Harpreet Kaur Saluja, in paragraph 25 of her cross-examination, denied the 5 applicant's suggestion that she had filed a complaint under Section 498A (dowry harassment) against the applicant at Bagbahara Police Station, which would be a sufficient reason for her to live separately from her husband, the applicant. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled for grant of maintenance. 6. Considering the submissions 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil