1 2025:CGHC:41287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 965 of 2024 Kamlesh Uttaradhi S/o. Late Gurumukh Das Utaradhi Aged About 50 Years R/o. Third Gali, Dastur Nagar, Near Durga Temple, P.S.- Rajapet, District - Amrawati, Maharashtra. ... Applicant versus 1 - Komal Kamlesh Uttaradhi W/o. Kamlesh Uttaradhi Aged About 35 Years R/o. Krishna Apartment, Third Mala, Flat No. 6, District - Balodabazaar-Bhatapara (C.G.), Present Address- Pintu Time Centre, Kera Road, In Front Of City Kotwali, Naila, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Minor Mahek Uttaradhi D/o. Kamlesh Uttaradhi Aged About 10 Years Minor, Represented Through Respondent No. 1, R/o. Krishna Apartment, Third Mala, Flat No. 6, District - Balodabazaar-Bhatapara (C.G.), Present Address- Pintu Time Centre, Kera Road, In Front Of City Kotwali, Naila, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Minor Chahek Uttaradhi D/o. Kamlesh Uttaradhi Aged About 6 Years Minor, Represented Through Respondent No. 1, R/o. Krishna Apartment, Third Mala, Flat No. 6, District - Balodabazaar-Bhatapara (C.G.), Present Address- Pintu Time Centre, Kera Road, In Front Of City Kotwali, Naila, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Anurag Khatri, Advocate RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Anurag Khatri, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “The applicant humbly and most respectfully prays that the Hon'ble court may kindly please to :- 1) quash/set aside order dated 14/05/2024 passed in Misc Criminal Case no. 198/2023 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice. 2) Or pass any appropriate orders which Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the ends of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of respondent No.1 with the applicant was solemnized on 19.01.2009 in Maharashtra, and from the wedlock two daughters, Ku. Mehak and Ku. Chehak, were born. The respondent alleged that the applicant subjected her to cruelty in connection with a demand for dowry, habitually consumed alcohol, and committed domestic violence. It was further alleged that on 24.04.2022, the applicant demanded Rs. 6,00,000/- as dowry, assaulted her, and drove her out of the matrimonial home, following which she lodged a complaint at Mahila Thana, Janjgir, but the applicant did not attend the scheduled counselling. She, therefore, sought maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 10,000/- each for the two daughters under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The 3 applicant, in reply, denied the allegations and asserted that the respondent No.1 is gainfully employed with an NGO under the P.H.E. Department, Baloda Bazaar, earning about Rs. 30,000/- per month. He further pleaded that he is financially weak, has no clothing shop, earns only through selling clothes in markets on a daily basis, and resides in a rented house. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence, including affidavits as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh vs. Neha (Appeal No. 730/2020). Upon hearing the parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 14.05.2024, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month each to the respondent and her two daughters. Aggrieved, the present revision has been preferred on the ground that the order is unsustainable and the maintenance amount deserves modification. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant/husband submits that he has always been willing to keep his wife and daughters with him, but the wife has willfully refused to cohabit. During counselling before the Mahila Thana, it emerged that the wife insisted the husband shift to Janjgir for work, which he declined as his business is in Maharashtra, leading her to file a false maintenance case. He objected to the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Baloda Bazaar, as the couple last resided in Maharashtra and the wife’s parental home is in Janjgir, yet she filed the case at Baloda Bazaar without disclosing that she was employed there. It is contended that the wife has deliberately neglected cohabitation despite his repeated offers to take her back, and has even denied 4 him access to the children. Learned cousnel fo the applicant further states that his aged parents are dependent on him, he resides in Amravati with a high cost of living, and the wife failed to produce any proof of his income. Despite his offer to pay Rs. 7,000/- for all three applicants, the Family Court, without basis, awarded Rs. 5,000/- each. It is argued that the order is unsustainable as the wife did not approach the court with clean hands, the maintenance was wrongly ordered from the date of application, and the Family Court accepted her evidence without proper appreciation, thereby rendering the impugned order liable to be set aside or modified. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, District – Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after carefully evaluating the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and the affidavits filed in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh vs. Neha (Appeal No. 730/2020), rightly concluded that respondent No.1 and her two minor daughters were entitled to maintenance. The allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and domestic violence, supported by the circumstances in which the respondent was 5 compelled to live separately, were not effectively rebutted by the applicant. The plea of the applicant regarding the respondent’s employment and income was not substantiated to the extent of negating her right to claim maintenance for herself and the children, nor was it shown that he had made sufficient provision for their sustenance. Considering the respective needs of the dependents, the applicant’s earning capacity, and the standard of living, the award of Rs. 5,000/- per month each to respondent No.1 and her two daughters, as ordered on 14.05.2024, is just, reasonable, and free from any infirmity. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan