1 2025:CGHC:29554 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 388 of 2017 Smt. Renuka @ Rinku Sahu W/o Mohit Lal Sahu, Aged About 34 Years R/o In Front Of Gurudwara, Panshil Nagar, Charoda, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Mohit Lal Sahu S/o Late Mohan Lal Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o 31- B, Near D.A.V. School, Sonari, Police Station Sonari, District- West Singbhoom, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. , Jharkhand ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Khatri, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anurag Khatri, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, 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 Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 impugned order dated 25.03.2017 passed by the family court Durg may kindly be a modified, and allow application for maintenance under section 125 for Cr.P.C. for grant of 50000/- per month from the date of application 20.07.2015 in the interest of justice. This Hon'ble Court may further please to pass any other order or relief in favour of present appellant as deem fit and proper and the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant (wife) and the non-applicant (husband) was solemnized on 01.05.2013 at Charoda, Bhilai, in accordance with Hindu customs and rituals. However, just one month after the marriage, the non- applicant and his family members started subjecting the applicant to physical and mental cruelty for dowry. The non-applicant used to call the applicant characterless, abuse her, and even threatened to kill her. He also did not allow her to visit her parental home. In this regard, the applicant’s parents had tried to counsel the non- applicant, but there was no change in his behavior or conduct. The non-applicant is also alleged to have illicit relationships with other women, which led him to frequently assault the applicant. He even forcibly obtained the applicant’s signatures on an agreement and took possession of her jewelry and ₹50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees) in cash. Thereafter, the non-applicant threw the applicant out of the house. 3 4. Thereafter, the applicant had moved an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance against the non-applicant on 20.07.2015. According to the applicant wife she had been forced to leave her matrimonial house on account of the cruelty which she was subjected to at the hands of the non-applicant. The Court after registration of the case had issued notice to the non-applicant in the claim case i.e. husband. It is said that the service of the said notice was served personally on the non-applicant and was served upon one Gyan Bai who is said to be the mother of the non-applicant. Since there was no representation in spite of the service being made the Family Court proceeded with the case ex-parte against the present applicant and passed the order on 22.12.2015 allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing the non- applicant to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the applicant wife as maintenance. 5. The non-applicant has taken steps for moving revision vide Criminal Revision No. 789/2016 for setting aside the impugned order before the Hon'ble High Court against the order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Case. 571/2015. That the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed order and direct that subject to the non-applicant deposits 50% of the amount is due on the date before of the amount as is due as on date before the Family Court by the next date of hearing, the impugned order shall not be acted upon and accordingly shall stand quashed. It is directed that the applicant as well as the Non- applicant both shall appear before the Court below on 9th January, 4 2017. It was ordered that the court below shall proceed further with the matter and shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 3 months from 9th January, 2017. On 9th January, 2017 the applicant shall appear before the Court below and shall also file his reply/objection on the same date. No further time shall be granted. Thereafter, the matter shall be proceeded for evidence and for passing of the final order afresh. The applicant on false and fabricated grounds filed case for set aside the maintenance order of Rs. 10,000/-. That non-applicant pleaded that, apart from his salary earning Rs. 6000/- per month as a Sai Mineral. The non-applicant is working partner of Vikas International, the Liberty Marin Syndicate Private Limited, (Odisa Magniz and Minierals District Mining Chaibasa, Limited, Jharkhand (Distributor) and Sai Minerals and he is earning around 3,00,000/- per month. 6. The learned Family Court concerned after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 25.03.2017, whereby the non-applicant/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant/wife. Hence, this revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the Family Court committed great error by not appreciating the admitted fact that the non-applicant had lodged complaint against applicant for her mental harassment. The Family Court has failed to appreciate the documents report lodged by non-applicant against applicant. The Court failed to consider that non-applicant could not prove his case, 5 the grounds raised by non-applicant with regard to the other source of income apart from salary of 6000/- was proved wrong. The Court below committed error by not appreciating the documentary evidence produced by applicant, which clearly shows that, behavior of non-applicant was rude, he did not wanted to reside with applicant, he did not like applicant. It is also admitted by non- applicant that applicant left her matrimonial house after tourter by the non-applicant and his family member. He further submits that the learned Family Court held that both the parties have leveled allegation against each other but committed error by considering the version of non-applicant without any documentary prove. The non- applicant did not adduce any documentary evidence to support his contention where as applicant had produced documentary evidence. The Family Court failed to consider the provision required under section 125 of Cr.P.C. that the applicant has to inter huge amount of her father income in her treatment and medicine. There is finding of Family Court that the non-applicant is not earning any money from business of mining with is partnership with his friends as alleged by the non-applicant. The Family Court knowing fully well that the non-applicant is earning around Rs. 3,00,000/- per month, committed great error by awarding 3000/- to the applicant. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court suffer from severe infirmities and hence liable to be set-aside. 8. Learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the concerned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence 6 adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 10.From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the non- applicant is employed in a private job and earns a monthly income of ₹3,00,000/- (Three Lakh Rupees). However, the applicant was not submitted any substantial documentary evidence to prove that the non-applicant is indeed earning ₹3,00,000/- per month. Furthermore, no statement was recorded from any competent authority or official of the said private organization where the non- applicant is claimed to be employed. On the other hand, the non- applicant was submitted Document Exhibit D-01 to establish that he earns ₹6,000/- (Six Thousand Rupees) per month through private work. This document was provided by the non-applicant’s witness No. 02, Mohan Lal. The testimony of the non-applicant remained unshaken during cross-examination. While deciding the case, the learned Family Court rely in the case of Durga Singh vs. Prembai, 1990 CRLJ 2065, the Hon’ble Court observed that a person having the capacity to earn cannot shy away from his responsibility of providing maintenance. In light of this legal precedent, it is reasonable to conclude that the non-applicant is capable of earning and is in a position to provide maintenance to the applicant. Moreover, being her husband, he has a moral as well as legal duty to maintain the applicant according to his financial capacity. 7 11.Taking into account the age, social standing, needs of both parties, and the prevailing cost of living, the amount of ₹3,000/- (Three Thousand Rupees) per month awarded by the Family Court concerned as maintenance cannot be considered on the lower side. 12. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court, I am of the considered 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. 13. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal