1 2025:CGHC:41438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1146 of 2024 Deepak Bahrus S/o Shri Vishu Bahrus Aged About 33 Years R/o Flat No. 5 C And D, Shivam Apartments, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata, West Bengal- 700019 ... Applicant(s) versus Neha Sadana W/o Deepak Bahrus Aged About 33 Years D/o Suresh Kumar Sadana, R/o K- 23, Steel City, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur, P.S. Telibanda, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001 ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Ms. Manisha Chatarji, Advocate (through V.C.) along with Mr. Akhand Pratap, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Manisha Chatarji, learned counsel appearing through video conferencing along with Mr. Akhand Pratap, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: A“ This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records from the learned Family Court concerned KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 pertaining to the case of the applicant for perusal of this Hon’ble Court. B. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Judge, Family Court at Raipur under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (Neha Sadana Vs. Deepak Bahrus) C. Cost of the proceedings. D. Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and the respondent tied the wedding knot on 23rd November 2019 at the Gurudwara at Bhowanipore according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and thereafter the respondent has been residing with her in-laws at the residence of the applicant. The respondent from the very beginning started behaving in an arrogant way which is ex-facie clear from her behaviour as she frequently started going to her maternal place on various pretext. Being a loving husband, the applicant never objected to such behaviour and always bore all the expenses of her to and fro journey. The applicant always bought her expensive jewelleries, dresses and electronic gadgets whenever the respondent desired just to make her happy. The applicant even took her to foreign trips on various occasions. In spite of all such love for her, the respondent left on 09th October, 2020 for her maternal place at Raipur for which her tickets and other expenses were borne by the applicant and her family. This was the last time she left the applicant and deserted him for which the applicant was absolutely 3 not prepared for. The applicant called the respondent wife several times over phone to ascertain the reason for her desertion but did not receive any valid answer or response. The respondent only demanded money whenever the applicant requested her to come back to which the applicant started sending money online in frequent intervals. That in spite of all efforts and getting no response over phone and having waited for a long time for her return, the applicant/husband wrote a letter requesting his wife to come back as he is unable to bear the pain of staying alone without his wife whom he loved dearly. That seeing the wife not wanting to return, the husband filed petition U/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the 6th Additional District Judge, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal on 10th November, 2021 being Suit No 3193 of 2021. The concerned court issued summons U/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as paper publication was made directing her to appear before him on 7th January, 2022 but she did not appear on the said date. The respondent wife did not appear in the said matter even once so that the learned Judge could ascertain the reason for such desertion. But unfortunately, the respondent wife deliberately avoided to be present before the learned Judge. Thereafter the learned trial Court Judge was pleased to pass an ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights on 10th June, 2022. Thereafter the respondent filed a petition of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Family Court at Raipur against the applicant being Criminal M.C.C. No 815/2021 making out a false case just to harass the applicant and with a 4 motive for undue advantage and gain. The application for maintenance was filed on 22.12.2021 which clearly indicates afterthought and was listed for hearing on 23.11.2022 wherein the learned advocate of the applicant raised the point on maintainability of such complaint being filed. After prolonged hearing and looking into the facts and circumstances and dismissing the maintainability point of the case, the learned Family Court, recommended counselling for both the applicant and respondent with a hope for reconciliation between the parties. Though both of them underwent counselling, but the same failed as there was no sign or effort made between the husband and wife for further bonding. 4. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court decided the matter and passed the order dated 10.02.2023 (ex-parte) directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs 15,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance and further order to bear Rs. 2000/- for the expenses of the proceedings. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred a revision before this Court for setting aside the order dated 10.02.2023 as passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur in M.C.C. No. 815 of 2021 wherein granted Rs. 15000/- per month as maintenance. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after hearing the parties, remitted back the matter to the learned Family Court concerned for passing the order afresh in accordance with law after granting opportunity of hearing to the applicant and further directed to decide the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. within further period of 04 months. 5 5. The learned Family Court concerned, after affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant, allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 14.08.2024 and directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and the said order is under challenge in this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, concerned ignored the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court setting aside the order granting Rs 15,000/- monthly maintenance to the respondent directing the Family Court for passing order afresh in according with law. The learned Family Court, ought to have considered that the respondent/wife has left her in-laws house without any proper reason and ought to have dismissed the application at the onset of filing the same. The learned Family Court should have understood that the respondent should have complied with the order passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Alipore South 24 Parganas, West Bengal dated 15th July, 2022 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. The Family Court should have considered the submission made by the learned advocate of the applicant that the monthly income of the applicant is less than Rs 25,000/- per month which was placed as evidence by producing the income tax return statement before the said learned Family Court. In addition, the applicant produced all documents related to the ownership of the garment shop which belonged to his parents. But on the contrary the Family Court relied on the statement made by the respondent stating the income of the applicant to be Rs 1,00,000/- per month which indicates the learned 6 Family Court had not considered the contentions and documentary evidences produced by the applicant before the learned Family Court and the order passed is full of surmises and conjectures as evident from the dates mentioned. For example, the petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights was filed on 10.11.2021 but was wrongly written as 10.11.2022. The respondent wife filed 125 CrPC on 22.05.2021 but the order shows the same on 22.11.2022. The instant proceeding is attended with manifest malafide and the same was instituted for oblique purpose to earn profit out of the wedlock. The learned Family Court has ignored affidavit given by applicant to prove his income but considered the bio-data of the applicant to decide income which is not heard of in law. He has also completely ignored the order passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it is respectfully submitted here that order has not been set- aside by any court of law and wife is legally bound to live with husband and discharge her liability, and therefore granting maintenance to a woman who is living separate only to create a source of income by using legal proceedings as toolkit without completing her obligations. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 7. 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. 7 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 learned Family Court has held that the respondent has succeeded in proving her application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expenses granted Rs.25000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 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/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal