1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1185 of 2019 Suresh Pawar S/o Bhimraj Pawar Aged About 36 Years Occupation- Business, R/o 22 Sardar Patel Colony, Narayanpura, Ahmedabad, Gujrat, ... Applicant versus Smt. Neelam Pawar W/o Shri Suresh Pawar Aged About 35 Years D/o Shri Kailashchand Dahiya, House-Wife, R/o Shailendra Nagar, P.S. City Kotwali, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Das, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. Heard Ms. Purnima Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the family court act and in VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.06.27 20:40:01 +0530 2 exercise thereof call for the records of the case from the Court below, if necessary, and after hearing the parties in the matter, set aside the impugned order dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure-A/1) in case No. 524/14 passed by the 1"" Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. 4. Brief Facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent herein are husband and wife, they got married on 10.12.2005 at Ahemdabad and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife at Ahemdabad with the applicant's family, till November 2012. That, the respondent filed an application under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the maintenance from applicant/husband. The respondent in her application stated that applicant tortured the respondent and always taunted the respondent for bringing dowry not as per their expectations in marriage and further ousted the respondent from matrimonial house in November 2012. Even the applicant never took care of the respondent whenever the respondent got ill and further pleaded that applicant and his family member without any reason harass the respondent and always asked for a car and demand dowry amounting of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Further stated that the applicant had never returned the respondent's "stridhan" and the applicant had already initiated the divorce proceedings. The respondent further stated that the applicant is from well to do family and currently running a business and earning Rs.3,50,000 per month. The currently respondent is unemployed and there is no source of her income. Therefore, the respondent cannot maintain herself and prayed for Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance from the applicant. The learned family court was pleased to grant time 3 to respondent to file reply of the application filed by the applicant and further fixed the matter for 08.07.2019. On 08.07.2019 the learned judge of family court was on holiday so the matter was further fixed for 06.08.2019. On 06.08.2019 the applicant was failed to appear before the learned family court and from his counsel filed an application and stated that flood had hit the whole state of Gujrat and the applicant is the resident of Ahmedabad and due to that the applicant failed to appear before the learned family court. The learned family court surprisingly made the applicant ex-parte on 06.08.2019 even when the counsel on behalf of applicant appeared before the family court. The respondent taking benefit of the situation end her evidence and the learned family court fixed matter for final hearing on 08.08.2019 and after final hearing on 08.08.2019 the learned family court ex-parte passed the impugned order on 13.08.2019 (Annexure A-1), partly allowed the respondent maintenance application and grant Rs.10,000/- per month. The copy of relevant part of order sheets are filed and annexed herewith as ANNRXURE-A/3. The applicant submits that a glance of the impugned order will make it clear that the court below has committed a grave error of law and jurisdiction by passing the ex-parte order dated 06.08.2019 even when the counsel on behalf of applicant appeared before the court. The court while arriving at this conclusion has not taken the fact that the applicant is resident of Ahmedabad and during that period floods had hit the whole Gujrat state and that is the only reason the applicant failed to appear before the learned family court but the counsel had appeared on behalf of applicant and without appreciating above facts and circumstances passed the impugned order and grant Rs.10,000/- to the respondent. Hence, this revision. 4 5. The learned trial Court, after hearing both parties and perusing the documents placed on record, awarded Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent, however, the learned trial Court erred in ignoring the fact that respondent had deserted the applicant without any sufficient cause or reason. The Court also erred in assessing the applicant’s income and fixing the said maintenance amount. Furthermore, the trial Court failed to consider that the applicant is also responsible for taking care of his aged parents. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Raipur is illegal, improper, and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned trial Court erred in holding that respondent (wife) is living separately without any sufficient reason, ignoring the averments regarding the physical and mental cruelty committed against her. He submits that the learned trial Court erred in not holding that respondent (wife) has deserted the company of the applicant of her own will. He also submits that the learned trial Court erred in deciding the quantum of maintenance for respondent, which is on the higher side and was fixed without properly considering the income of the husband. The learned trial Court failed to consider that the applicant is also taking care of his aged parents. He further submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the applicant has an income of only about Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month, and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, a maintenance amount of 25% of the husband’s income would be just and proper. The learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents available on record. For the reasons stated above, among others, the 5 impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 7. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and further supports the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. However, the concerned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav