1 2025:CGHC:39150 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 965 of 2025 Dilip Sahu S/o Kriparam Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Bakra Market, Indira Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Namrata @ Manjulata W/o Dilip Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Jevra Sirsa, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Yashaswi D/o Dilip Sahu Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Namrata @ Manjulata, R/o Jevra Sirsa, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Pranay Golchha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 02/07/2025 passed by Family Court Durg in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1107/2019 and / or modify the order by reducing the amount of maintenance, in the interest of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No. 1 was married to applicant on 01/02/2017 as per Hindu customs and traditions. Out of their wedlock, a daughter Ku. Yashaswi, non-applicant No. 2 was born on 25/11/2017 who at present is residing with non- applicant No.1. She submits in her application that only 10 days after the marriage, the mother-in-law of non-applicant No.1 started torturing her that her parents have not given dowry as per their expectations. Sisters of applicant used to gather at the house of applicant every Sunday and they along with her mother-in-law, harass her saying that her father has not given dowry. Mother-in-law used to say that she practices witchcraft (tonhi pratadna) on her son therefore, she must leave the house and that she would remarry her son. In this way non-applicant No.1 was harassed mentally. The applicant and his family members called five occultists who misbehaved with the non-applicant No.1. It is further alleged that when Non-applicant No.1 was pregnant, the applicant and his family members did not take her to the doctor for treatment and she is now dealing with thyroid problem. It was not treated and she was asked to get abortion done because if mentally weak child is born then she would be responsible. It is further alleged that she was harassed during pregnancy and was thrown out of the house upon which she reached to her parental house with great difficulty. The applicant looks after hostel of Sahu community and he made application in Sahu community against non-applicant No.1 on false grounds which notice she received and then she gave correct facts 3 in the community meeting. Thereupon, applicant brought back the non-applicants to his house but just two three days after she came, her mother-in-law and sister-in-laws started harassing her. The applicant then left the non-applicant No.1 to her parental house saying that he would take her back later. Daughter Yashaswi was born on 25/11/2017 at Sector-9 Hospital. Despite giving information of birth of his daughter to the applicant, neither he nor his parents came to see the child. Non-applicant No.1 went back to her matrimonial house with her daughter in October 2018 with the help of community people and relatives but mother of applicant locked the house from inside and did not permit non-applicants to enter the house. The applicant is a post holder in Sahu community who did not appear in hearing on 22/01/2019 and on 12/02/2019 applicant forced her to sign on terms and conditions imposed by him, which she denied and did not sign. It is further alleged that she sent registered notice to applicant on 13/03/2019 through her counsel to take his wife and child with him within one week of receipt of notice and fulfil his marital life. In response to the said notice applicant stated that it was not possible for him to keep the non-applicants with him. It is further alleged that she has no independent source of income and she is financially incapacitated. The applicant runs businesses in the name of Trishakti Construction and Property Tikrapara Raipur, Sahu Marriage Palace and Events Tikrapara Raipur, Yashasvi Catering Service Tikrapara Raipur, Civil Contractor Municipal Corporation Raipur, Kripa Aqua Water Factory Sanjay Nagar Raipur and father of applicant Kriparam Sahu 4 receives pension of Rs. 25,000/- per month and income from house rent is Rs. 20,000/- per month and Mama Shah Sahu Complex Tikrapara Raipur is running on rent of Rs. 10,00,000/- per year and office room is given on rent in Dunda Raipur from which rent of Rs. 80,000/- per year is received. Thus, the total income of applicant is lakhs of rupees per month, apart from this he works as a property dealer where he receives commission of Rs. 40,000/- per month. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Family Court, sought maintenance of Rs.80,000/- per month from the applicant for herself as well as minor child. 3. After service of notice, the applicant herein submitted reply stating that the he has never demanded dowry from the non-applicant No.1. Non-applicant No. 1 his wife used to ask the applicant to live separately from his parents and when the applicant refused, on 17/07/2018, she called her father and went to her maternal home with all the gold jewelry and the items received at the time of birth of child. Since then, the non-applicant No.1 is living in her maternal home. It is further alleged that the parents and sisters of applicant did not harass her by calling a witch and neither did any occultist came to the house of applicant. The Non-applicant is a woman with independent thoughts and she has caused mental and physical financial distress to the applicant and his family by filing a report before the police station on the basis of false facts. The applicant got regular checkup of non-applicant done by the concerned doctor during her pregnancy but father of non-applicant No.1 said that this 5 is the first delivery and hence he will take her daughter home for the delivery. The applicant has tried several times to bring the non- applicant back. It was further stated that on 25/11/2017, after the birth of their daughter, he went to the hospital to meet his daughter and gave Rs. 40,000/- in cash to his father-in-law. In October 2018, the non-applicant No.1 along with her family members, suddenly came to the house of applicant and started abusing in the name of applicant, due to which the mother of applicant got scared and she did not open the door. On reaching the house of Aaplicant, the non- applicant No.1 caught hold of the collar of applicant and started beating him, which was reported at Police Station Tikrapara. It is further alleged that the non-applicant No.1 has made serious allegations against the applicant and his family members apart from dowry, and in such circumstances, it is not possible to keep the non- applicant No.1 with them. Non-applicant stated in the dowry case, counseling center on 02/06/2019 and 23/06/2019 that she wants to live with her husband, if her husband does not live with his parents and keeps her in a separate rented house, then she will live. The applicant is not the operator of Trishakti Construction, he is a partner 20-30 laborers work in the said business. After all expenses, he barely earns Rs. 10,000/-, with which he supports himself and his parents. The non-applicant is an educated woman, she earns Rs. 7000/- by doing sewing and embroidery work. Therefore, she is not entitled to receive any amount from the applicant. 6 4. On the basis of rival submissions and evidence adduced by both the parties, learned Family Court framed the points for consideration and partly allowed the application filed by non-applicants whereby directed the applicant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to each to non- applicant Nos.1 and 2 from the date of passing of the order (total 20,000/- per month as maintenance). Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is bad in law and in passing the impugned order the learned Family Court has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that there was no evidence on record to indicate that the applicant is capable to pay such huge maintenance. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the non-applicant No.1 has not produced any document regarding their monthly expenses. The learned Family Court further failed to appreciate that the Non-applicant No. 2 being only 2 years old does not require huge maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- at par with Non-applicant No.1. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set- aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, sought maintenance amount from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- per month. Upon appreciation of the facts, evidence and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court has partly allowed 7 the application whereby directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month each to the Non-applicant No.1 and 2 as maintenance (Total 20,000/-) . Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity as well as prevailing cost of living, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted as maintenance to the non-applicants, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal