1 2025:CGHC:38422 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 951 of 2022 Sajana Malhotra S/o Shri Late Chandu Malhotra Aged About 26 Years (Occupation Contactor And Farmer) R/o Village Narodhi PS Lohara District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Aamin Malhotra W/o Shri Sajana Malhotra Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bhoina - Bhata PS Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, 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 be passed to allow this revision petition and ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.05 13:50:08 +0530 2 further be pleased to set-aside the dated 27.05.2022 passed by learned Family Court Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 109/2022, parties between :Aamin Malhotra Vs. Sajana Malhotra” in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, seeking grant of maintenance on the ground that the applicant had neglected to maintain her. She prayed that the applicant be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. 4. Pursuant to the said application, the learned Family Court issued notice to the applicant. After service of notice, the applicant filed a detailed reply to the main application as well as to the interim maintenance application. 5. Despite, the facts stated above, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order dated 27.05.2022, allowing the application of the respondent on the ground that the Court found it established that the applicant and his family members were treating the respondent with cruelty. Consequently, the Court held that her residing at her maternal home was justified and constituted sufficient grounds for her to live separately from the applicant and awarded maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, erroneous, illegal, and contrary to the evidence available on 3 record, and is therefore liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court has ignored the provisions under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is most respectfully submitted that the respondent is living separately without any sufficient reason. He submits that learned Family Court failed to consider the reply filed by the applicant, wherein he categorically denied all the allegations mentioned in the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that learned Family Court ignored the statement of the respondent, wherein she clearly admitted that she had not lodged any report regarding demand of dowry at any police station. Furthermore, she admitted in her cross-examination (Para No. 8) that although a complaint was made before the Mahila Cell, no action was taken against the applicant or his family members. Learned Family Court also ignored the statement of the respondent (Para No. 9), where she admitted that a social meeting had taken place, yet she failed to produce any documentary evidence of such meeting. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to consider the statement of the applicant, wherein he clearly stated during cross-examination (Para No. 11) that he is the sole owner of only 20 dismil of land. The respondent has not produced any evidence to prove any other source of income of the applicant. 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. 4 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