1 2025:CGHC:45856 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 144 of 2020 Daya Kashyap S/o Late Chamru Kashyap Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Titirgaon Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kunti Kashyap W/o Daya Kashyap Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Chokawada, Police Station Nagarnaar Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Ranjita Kashyap D/o Daya Kashyap Aged About 1 Year, 6 Months, Is Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother I.E. Application No. 01, R/o Village Chokawada, Police Station Nagarnaar Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the non- applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the Court below for hearing arguments and be pleased to allow this revision and quash the order of maintenance passed by the learned Family Court in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of maintenance. The Non- applicant No. 1 submitted that she was married to the applicant in May 2015 according to their customary rites, and thereafter, they resided peacefully at her husband’s house in Village Titirgaon. It was further submitted that in the year 2016, when she was pregnant, the applicant beat her and expelled her from the matrimonial home. Thereafter, she went to her parental home, where she gave birth to a girl child (Non-applicant No. 2). It was further submitted that her parents and relatives tried to convince the applicant, but he abused them, turned them away, and started residing with another lady. She also lodged a complaint at Police Station Nagarnar, where she was advised to approach the competent Court. It was further submitted that she has been residing with her daughter (Non-applicant No. 2) at her parental home for the last several years and both are facing financial hardship. She stated that the applicant runs a grocery shop earning around ₹16,000/- per month and also receives about ₹2,00,000/- per year from agricultural income. Since the applicant refused to maintain them, they filed the present case under Section 125 3 Cr.P.C., praying for a direction to the applicant to pay ₹10,000/- per month as maintenance. 4. The applicant filed his reply, denying the allegations and the claim. He submitted that after 2–3 months of marriage, non-applicant No. 1 asked him to live with her at her parental home, but when he refused, she continuously tortured him and his mother and threatened to implicate them in a false case. He further submitted that after some time, non-applicant No. 1 went to her parental home where she gave birth to non-applicant No. 2. When he, along with his mother, went to meet them, the parents of non-applicant No. 1 shouted at them and even tried to assault them. He further submitted that he works as a labourer and earns only ₹3,000/- per month, from which he also maintains his mother. 5. The learned Family Court, after hearing both parties, partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay ₹1500/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 1000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2 as maintenance (total 2500/-) and further ordered to bear litigation expenses as awarded. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the learned Family Court failed to consider the admitted fact that the applicant earns only ₹3,000/- per month. The learned Family Court ought to have taken into account the rude and threatening behaviour of Non- applicant No. 1 towards the applicant and his family. The learned Family Court erred in granting maintenance without considering that, under settled law, while ordering maintenance the Court must 4 take into account the income of the spouse from whom such maintenance is sought. He further submits that the learned Family Court ought to have seen that the applicant never refused to maintain the non-applicants. The learned Family Court erred in awarding the amount of maintenance to the non-applicant despite the applicant having no independent source of sufficient income. The learned Family Court further failed to consider that the applicant is financially weak, earns only ₹3,000/- per month, and is not in a position to pay any such amount and he has also failed to consider the provision under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which makes it clear that where the wife resides separately of her own will, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after hearing both parties, partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay ₹1500/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 1000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2 as maintenance 5 till majority (total 2500/-). While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court concerned, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. 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 Kunal