1 2025:CGHC:28175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1082 of 2019 Ashwan Sahu S/o Late Bhushan Sahu Aged About 28 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village Kanapod, Tahsil Charama, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Yogeshwari Sahu W/o Ashwan Sahu Aged About 23 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village - Kanapod, Tahsil Charama, District Kanker Present Address C/o Shri Harchand Sahu, R/o Kurna, Police Station And District Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Bishnu Muni, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bishnu Muni, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.28 15:53:02 +0530 2 aside the impugned order dated 03.08.2019 passed by learned Family Court, in the interest of Justice.” 3. Brief Facts of the case the the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, claiming total maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the applicant. It was contended by the respondent that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 01.06.2018, and after marriage, she went to her matrimonial home to perform her matrimonial obligations. However, right from the beginning, she was harassed and subjected to cruelty on account of dowry demands by the applicant and his family members, and the applicant used to beat her after consuming liquor. Ultimately, she was ousted from the matrimonial home. It was further contended by the respondent that she has no source of income and that, despite having sufficient income, the applicant was not providing her with any maintenance, which compelled her to file the application for maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the applicant filed a reply, wherein he admitted the marriage between the parties but denied the remaining allegations. It was submitted by the applicant that before the marriage, the respondent was in a love affair with one Dhananjay and, therefore, she was not willing to marry the applicant. However, due to pressure from her parents, she performed the marriage with the applicant, and on the next day after the reception, she left the matrimonial home and switched off her mobile phone. The applicant 3 made efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the respondent, but when no information could be obtained, he informed his parents and the parents of the respondent, and a social meeting was convened on 02.06.2018 and 03.06.2018, during which the applicant showed messages and recordings between the respondent and Dhananjay. It was further contended by the applicant that a scooty, Activa vehicle, gas connection, and refrigerator were already available in the applicant’s house, and therefore, there was no occasion to harass the respondent for dowry. It was also submitted that the respondent herself had written a letter on 31.05.2018, in which she stated her intention to leave the applicant’s house, and during proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), the respondent admitted that she was not willing to live with the applicant and that the applicant and his family members had never subjected her to cruelty on account of dowry demands. It was further submitted that the respondent stayed in the applicant’s house for only one day and thereafter left the matrimonial home on her own and has been living separately since then; therefore, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the applicant. 5. After hearing both parties and upon perusal of the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 03.08.2019, partly allowed the application of the respondent and directed the applicant to pay a total amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent towards her maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 03.08.2019 is bad in law, being perverse, erroneous, and 4 contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent was having a love affair with one Dhananjay and, therefore, was not willing to marry the applicant. However, due to pressure from her parents, she performed the marriage with the applicant, and on the next day after the reception, she left the matrimonial home and switched off her mobile phone. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant tried to ascertain the whereabouts of the respondent, but when no information could be obtained, he informed his parents and the parents of the respondent, and a social meeting was convened on 02.06.2018 and 03.06.2018, during which the applicant showed messages and recordings between the respondent and Dhananjay. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that a scooty, Activa vehicle, gas connection, and refrigerator were already available in the applicant’s house, and therefore there was no occasion to harass the respondent for dowry. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent herself had written a letter on 31.05.2018, stating her intention to leave the applicant’s house, and during the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), the respondent admitted that she was not willing to live with the applicant and that the applicant and his family members had never subjected her to cruelty on account of dowry demands. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent remained in the applicant’s house for only a single day and 5 thereafter left the matrimonial home on her own and has been living separately since then. Therefore, she is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the applicant. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent herself deserted the applicant, and therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer 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. 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