1 / 6 2025:CGHC:15146 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 122 of 2025 1 - Rupendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Mahendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 25 Binova Nagar Raigarh P.S. Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Puja Sahu W/o Rupendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 25 Binova Nagar Raigarh, P.S., Tehsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) Present Address Ram Nagar, Ward No. 1, Kawardha, Thana And Tehsil Kawardha District Kabirdham ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 28/03/2025 1. The instant criminal revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1989 read with Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed against the order dated 07/12/2024 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.105 of 2023 by the Learned Judge, Family Court, ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.04.12 15:47:03 +0530 2 / 6 Kawardha, District Kawardha, whereby the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.12000/- per month to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the respondent /wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. alleging therein that the marriage of the respondent and the petitioner was solemnized on 28.11.2021 as per social customs. The marriage was preceded by an engagement. It was further pleaded that on the day of the engagement itself, the husband, had demanded the the dowry items. Thereafter, on their demand, the Respondent’s father got married by taking a loan. In the marriage, on the demand of the groom’s side, the non-applicant gave 10 tolas of gold, which included a necklace of two tolas, a bracelet of two and a half tolas, two pairs of ear rings of two tolas, a chain of two and a half tolas to Rupendra, five gold rings of one tola and 15 tolas of silver jewellery, including a waistband and anklets, and four lakh rupees in cash; because the Respondent’s husband and mother-in-law had clearly told the Respondent’s father that all the household items in their house are of good quality, and you people should give four lakh rupees in cash in exchange for the household items. Then, on their demand, four lakh rupees were given. After marriage the Respondent went to her in- laws house, at her in-laws house the Respondent started living jointly with her mother-in-law Rameshwari Sahu, brother-in-law Aishwarya Sahu, Digambar Sahu and she started following the duty of a devoted wife. After marriage the Respondent’s mother-in-law, 3 / 6 husband and brother-in-law started saying the respondent that her father did not give AC, cooler and car at the time of marriage. 3. The Respondent has further alleged in the application that the she was at her in-laws' place and was three months pregnant and when the Respondent’s mother-in-law and husband came to know about this, then the husband started saying that he does not want a child right now. The respondent was vomiting, then the mother-in-law used to say that she creates drama and neither did they take the respondent to the hospital nor did anyone take care of her. 4. It is further prayed in the application that the Respondent is the married wife of the petitioner, therefore it is his legal and moral duty to provide Rs. 40,000 per month for the Respondent maintenance, which the he is fully capable and responsible to pay, but he is deliberately neglecting to do so, due to which the respondent is facing financial crisis and is living a life of great pain and deprivation. Therefore, a request has been made to get the maintenance amount. 5. The petitioner herein filed the reply and except the facts admitted in the application, the alleged allegations have been denied and it has been alleged that no jewellery or cash was demanded from the non- applicant side in dowry. None of the incidents mentioned by the applicant has happened. The Jwellery which were given at the time of marriage, the respondent has kept the said jewellery with her. None of the incidents mentioned in the application of the respondent 4 / 6 has happened and the respondent was about three months pregnant and she went to her maternal home and got an abortion done there, saying that she does not like the petitioner and hence she does not want to become the mother of the petitioner’s child, in this way the respondent got an abortion done without the knowledge of the petitioner, information of which was given to the police station by him. The respondent has never been beaten nor mentally and physically harassed by the petitioner or the family. 6. Thereafter, the learned family Court after evaluating the facts & circumstances granted the maintenance to the tune of Rs.12,000/- per month to the wife payable from the date of application of maintenance. Hence this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an employee under the Janpad Panchayat which he got by way of compassionate appointment after the demise of his father, therefore, the petitioner being the elder son has to maintain all the dependents. He would next contend that the petitioner is getting a monthly salary of Rs.20,328/-, therefore, the maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to the wife is on the higher side, therefore, he prays that the instant petition may be allowed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order of granting maintenance and would submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5 / 6 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 10. The respondent in her statement at para 12 has stated that the petitioner is getting a salary of Rs.35000/- per month and he has rented a house situated in Raigarh from where he is earning Rs.25,000/- per month. She has further stated that 18.00 acres of agricultural land is in the ownership of the petitioner from where he is getting an annual income of Rs.15.00 Lakhs and he is having land in different other places. 11. The petitioner in his statement at para 7 has stated that the petitioner is getting a salary of Rs.20,238/- per month and he do not possess any immovable property and being in government service he do not have any other additional source of income and the agricultural land which has been mentioned by the respondent in the said land the petitioner is having only 1 / 4 share because the same land is a co- parcenery land and with respect to purchasing of car it has been stated that the said car has been purchased on finance. The petitioner in his statement at para 8 has stated that the respondent gives tution classes and runs a beauty parlour from where she is earning total monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. 12. From perusal of the record it makes it explicit that the petitioner is getting a monthly salary of Rs.20,328/- and he has got the job on compassionate ground on account of death of his father and there are total 03 persons dependent on the salary of the petitioner i.e. his 6 / 6 mother, one brother and he himself and he has to look after his mother and brother. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has admitted the fact that in 1acre of agricultural land his share is 1/4th and in Raigarh he has double storey constructed house and has Ertiga Car. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the fact that the petitioner got the appointment on compassionate ground, therefore he is liable to maintain his mother and brother. In such circumstances, the amount of maintenance of Rs.12000/- granted by the family Court appears on the higher side. Therefore, the amount of maintenance of Rs.12000/- per month is reduced to Rs.8000/- per month from the date of passing of the order by this Court. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu