1 2025:CGHC:28177 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1080 of 2019 Dr. Babulal Tiwari S/o Shri Umakant Tiwari Aged About 36 Years R/o Vitthal Nagar - 1, Nearby Uday Nagar Chowk Nagpur, Police Station Hudkeshwar, District Nagpur (Maharashtra) Working Place Address Dr. B.U. Tiwari, Parwati Nagar District Nagpur (Maharashtra) P.No. 9850318596 ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Pratima Tiwari W/o Dr. Babulal Umakant Tiwari Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 244/1, Jagriti Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Aradhya Tiwari D/o Dr. Babulal Tiwari, Aged About 20 Months (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Pratima Tiwari, R/o House No. 244/1, Jagriti Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.28 15:53:30 +0530 2 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set-aside the order dated 15.07.2019 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. M.J.C. Case No. 628/2017, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief Facts of the case the applicant is the husband of respondent No. 1 and the father of respondent No. 2. It is an admitted fact that the applicant and respondent no. 1 are legally wedded husband and wife, their marriage having been solemnized on 27.05.2011 as per Hindu rituals and customs, and out of their wedlock, respondent No. 2 was born. Respondent no. 1 filed an application for maintenance, claiming a monthly amount of Rs. 50,000/- for herself and her daughter. It was stated in the application that the applicant is earning Rs. 2,00,000/- per month by practicing as a doctor. It was further alleged in the application that the applicant used to misbehave with and torture respondent No. 1 with demands for dowry, due to which she left the matrimonial house and started residing at her father’s house with her minor daughter, Aradhya, since 04.09.2017. She has no source of income and is totally dependent upon her father for their livelihood. 4. In reply to the application filed by respondent No. 1, the applicant denied the allegations of cruelty made by respondent No. 1 in her 3 application for maintenance. The applicant further stated that respondent No. 1 refused to live in the joint family and pressurized the applicant to live separately from his parents and other family members, which the applicant did not agree to, due to which respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial home. The applicant made several efforts to bring back respondent No. 1 personally and through social media, but all efforts went in vain, and the respondents filed the application for maintenance merely with the intention to harass him mentally and financially. The applicant further averred that he is an Ayurvedic doctor earning only Rs. 15,000/- per month and is residing in a rented house. The applicant does not own any immovable property. He has also filed his income tax return verification form dated 02.08.2017. The learned Family Court, Raipur, awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, and is therefore, liable to be set aside. He submits that the learned Family Court has committed an illegality by not considering the fact that the income of the applicant is only Rs. 15,000/- per month and has awarded an excessive amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondents. The learned Family Court has committed an illegality by not considering the fact that the applicant has not neglected or refused to maintain respondent No. 1, whereas respondent No. 1 has voluntarily left the matrimonial house and is residing in her parental home of her own will. He further submits that the learned 4 Family Court has committed an illegality by not considering the fact that the applicant made several efforts to bring back respondent No. 1 personally and through social media. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. 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 respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek