1 2025:CGHC:32581 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1037 of 2023 Amil Kumar Jain S/o. Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Aged About 30 Years R/o. Gali No.1, L-1, In Front Of Taiyabba Masjid, Pushpkunj, Bhartiya Nagar, Bilaspur, District -Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Pratiksha Jain W/o. Shri Amil Kumar Jain, Aged About 25 Years Through Smt. Pratibha Jain, R/o. I-106, Golden Sky, V.I.P. Road, Raipur, District -Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Bharat Rajput, submits that today he has filed his power on behalf of the applicant. 2. Heard Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sudeep Johri, learned counsel appearing for the non- applicant. 3. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the court below and for KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 hearing arguments be pleased to allow this revision and set-aside the final order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principle Judge, Family Court Raipur.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and non-applicant are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 28.02.2021, as per Hindu Right and Rituals in Bhilai Distt- Durg. After some time of marriage, the dispute had been arises by the non-applicant on the ground of cruelty caused by the husband/applicant and just after marriage of about 7 months the non-applicant herself left the matrimonial home on 30.09.2021 and residing in parental house. Therefore, due to lack of financial support, on 18.11.202,1 the non-applicant has filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the applicant for grant of maintenance by stating that, at the time of marriage the applicant and his father demanded Rs. 10,000/- for dowry and the mother of the non-applicant given Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of marriage, she was further stated that, after her marriage, the cruelty has been meted out by the husband for demanding un-natural sex and without her consent committed sexual intercourse, she was further stated that, the family members also threatened the non-applicant committed cruelty only just to harass the non-applicant without any reason, due to which she left the matrimonial house with her mother on 30.09.2021. She was further stated that, due to said cruelty caused by the applicant and his family members she filed a complaint before the concerned police station and the concerned 3 police after conducting the mediation registered the case against the applicant and his family members under section 498-A R/w 34 of IPC. She further stated that, the applicant is a proprietor of M/s Satya E- Rickshaw and is earning of Rs. 3,00,000/- per months and the non-applicant is non-earning person and is depended to her mother and prayed to grant the maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per months. 5. The non-applicant also filed an interim application for grant of interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- during the pendency of the said application by stating that, the applicant is a proprietor of M/s Satya E- Rickshaw and is earning of Rs. 3, 00,000/- per month and the non-applicant is non-earning person and is totally dependent in her mother and prayed to grant the interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per months during the pendency of this revision. 6. After receiving the notice, the applicant filed his reply to the original application and denied the all averments made by the non- applicant. He stated that after the marriage, the non-applicant was harassing the applicant and his family member and she used to consume liquor from time to time and on objecting the same she use to start quarrel with him and his family members by using abusive languages. He further stated that the non-applicant had made a false allegation against him by stating that the applicant use to demand having unnatural sex at the time of honeymoon at Goa and without her consent he committed sexual intercourse with her. He further stated that in fact after the marriage no harassment was caused by the applicant but in fact when the non-applicant was at 4 Goa for honeymoon she used to demand liquor and used to start quarrel with the applicant on each and every day and further all allegations made by the non-applicant are false and fabricated and on 30.09.21, due to inability to meet illegal demand she herself left the matrimonial home and at present she is residing at parental home. He further stated that he is a non earning person and is not a proprietor of M/s Satya E- Rickshaw whereas the non-applicant is a earning person and is working as a gym trainer and is earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month, thus she is not entitled to get any maintenance from him. The applicant further replied to the application filed by the non-applicant on interim application by specifically stated that the applicant is a non earning person and is not a proprietor of M/s Satya E-Rickshaws whereas the non applicant is an earning person and is working as a Gym trainer and is earning about Rs. 1,00,000/-. 7. After filing the reply, the learned Family Court framed the issues and has fixed the case for evidence. The non-applicant adduced the evidence and the present applicant did not adduce any evidence and has remained ex-parte before the learned Family Court during trial. Thus, the learned Family Court after appreciating the documents and perusing the evidence of non-applicant, passed the impugned order dated 04.07.2023 whereby, it has directed the applicant to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance amount in favour of non-applicant from the date of filing of application and further order if any interim maintenance granted earlier shall be adjusted. Hence this revision. 5 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that, as per application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicant (wife) she specifically stated in Para 12 that, she herself left the matrimonial house with her mother on 30.09.202. He further submits that the learned Family Court further failed to consider that, after registration of FIR against the applicant, the applicant moved an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail which has been allowed, thus prima-facie the cruelty is not made out against the applicant and only just the harass the applicant, the non-applicant herself left the matrimonial house and has falsely implicated the applicant in criminal case. The learned Family Court further failed to consider that the non applicant filed his reply along with some relevant documents as he became ex parte in the trial only on the basis of application and documents submitted by the applicant passed the order, whereas the applicant submitted some relevant document in his reply which shows that the non applicant is an earning person and the present applicant is a non earning person. The learned Family Court further failed to consider that during the pendency of the trail the applicant submitted affidavit as per the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs Neha and he has also deposed in the affidavit that he is a non earning person and his father is a proprietor of M/s E Rikshaw but the Ld. Family court without considering the documents and affidavit submitted by the applicant has passed the impugned order. The learned Family Court ought to have seen and held that, as per reply 6 submitted by applicant he has specifically stated that the non applicant is an earning person and is working as a gym trainer and is earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the non applicant never made any complaint regarding her harassment by the applicant, except 498-A of I.P.C. and straight away filed a maintenance application whereas she herself left the matrimonial house. Therefore, the learned Family Court has passed the maintenance amount in higher side without considering the evidence of the applicant. Therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant 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. 10.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 11. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicant has succeeded in proving her application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, monthly income of the applicant and other expenses, the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.15000/- per month to the non-applicant as maintenance, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and 7 finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.15000/- per month to the non-applicant, 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. 13. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. 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