1 2025:CGHC:41281 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1021 of 2024 Shishir Kesharwani S/o Sharad Kesharwani Aged About 43 Years R/o Flat No. 402, City Heart Apartment, Kailashpuri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Shubha Gupta Keshwarwani W/o Shishir Kesharwani And D/o Manharan Lal Gupta Aged About 42 Years R/o M.I.G. 59, Housing Board Colony, Awanti Vihar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Nishtha Kesharwani D/o Shishir Kesharwani Aged About 7 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Shubha Gupta W/o Shishir Kesharwani (Respondent No. 1 Herein), R/o M.I.G. 59, Housing Board Colony, Awanti Vihar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Prem Shankar Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Parmeshwar Yadav, learned counsel for the Non-applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and pleased to set aside the impugned order KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 dated 08.07.2024 passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal M.C.C. No. 874/2023. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the instant case from the leaned family Court for its kind perusal, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants herein had moved an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of maintenance against the applicant herein/husband claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- per month stating inter alia that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No.1 was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs at Visling Wood, Telibandha Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 01.12.2014. Thereafter, they resided together as husband and wife. After some time of marriage, the Non-applicant No.1 had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and her husband's family members with regard to demand of dowry and to fulfill the demand of the husband, the brother of the non-applicant No.1 was deposited the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the account of the applicant and after that demand of dowry was not stop and it was increased and pressurized to fulfill the demand. The Non-applicant No.1 conceived pregnancy and in pregnancy, she was expelled out from house on 06.05.2015 by the husband and by the husband's family members. She further stated that the husband and family members of the husband demanded dowry again and again and they were not taking care of properly when she was pregnant. The Non-applicant No.1 3 given birth to the baby girl on 17.10.2015 at the Sai Baba Nursing Home, but the applicant did not visit Hospital to see the new born baby. The father of the Non-applicant No.1 did taking care of and paid all the dues of the Hospital. The Non-applicant No.1 is living separately since 06.05.2015 from the applicant and is living in her parental house. She further alleged that her husband did not maintain her and her minor child. She has no independent source of income to maintain herself and her minor daughter. Her husband is having handsome income i.e. Rs. 1,50,000/- per month as he is giving Computer training, apart from that, he has 25 acres agriculture land and is earning Rs. 50000-60000/- per month. The applicant has a flat on his name. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance from the applicant. 4. After receiving the notice from the learned Family Court, the applicant /husband filed his return denying the contention put forth by the applicant except the admitted facts stating inter alia that his wife left matrimonial home voluntarily and residing separately at her parental house without any sufficient reason. He tried several times to take her back to her matrimonial house but she refused to come back. It was further stated that he and his family members have never threatened in the name of dowry and allegations in respect of the dowry is false. So far as the amount to the sum of Rs. 100000/- deposited by the brother of the non-applicant No.1 in the account of the applicant is concerned that it was given to her sister for honeymoon and it was not demanded by the applicant. No any demand of dowry was made by the applicant and nor by the family 4 members and the allegation of demand of dowry is totally false as she was not made any complaint against the applicant nor against the family members. He further denied that allegations with regard to cruelty and dowry harassment. The applicant has no agriculture land as has been pleaded by the wife. The parties were examined their witnesses before the leaned Family to prove their cases. 5. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, and after due consideration, the learned Family Court vide its order dated 08.07.2024 has been partly allowed and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 8000/- per month to the Non- applicant No.1 and Rs. 4000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.2. The maintenance is to be paid from the date of the institution of the application and further ordered to bear Rs. 2000/- for the expenses of the proceedings. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred by allowing an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of maintenance, because, the respondent/wife has independent source of income and is able to maintain herself and this facts have been duly proved by the applicant. He further submits that the Non-applicant No.1 did not produce the Income Tax Return (ITR) before the learned Family Court while passing of the impugned order, if the same was produced before the leaned Family Court then it could be clear that she is earning how much. The Non-applicant No.1 is able to maintain herself as she is more qualified from the applicant. The Non- applicants have failed to prove the fact that the applicant and 5 relatives of the applicant have demanded dowry and were given cruel treatment to her. He further submits that the learned Family Court has erred by holding that the wife is living separately with sufficient reasons, but there are ample and sufficient reasons are available on records to show that the wife is living separately voluntarily and without any sufficient reason. He also submits that the claim of the non-applicants ought to have dismissed entirely. The learned Family Court has committed an error by not allowing to the applicant to get examine his witness in his support and closed to the right of the applicant to examine his witness, which is prejudice to the applicant. The learned Family Court ought to have given proper opportunity to the applicant for examination of his witnesses. The non-applicants have failed to prove the case by producing the income of the applicant and there is no any documents. The applicant’s income is not fixed and is working on contractual basis. Accordingly, he prays that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, deserves 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 an application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, 6 sought maintenance amount from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- per month. Upon appreciation of the facts, evidence and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court come to the conclusion and has partly allowed the application filed by the non- applicants whereas directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 4000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.2 until her marriage as maintenance from the date of filing of the application (Total 12,000/-per month). While passing the said order, the learned Family Court keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity as well as prevailing cost of living, expected expenses granted as maintenance to the non-applicants, which 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, 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 trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal