1 2025:CGHC:41440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1109 of 2024 Nitin Jethwani S/o Sh Harish Jethwani Aged About 32 Years R/o Flat No. 202, Ashtagandh Society, Near Rustle Nest Restaurant Baner, Pune, Maharastra- 411045, Permanent Address H. N. A12, Near Neeraj Industries, Vijay Vihar Priyadashini Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 Mobile- 7000398230 ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Darshita Jethwani D/o Late Shri Rajesh Kingrani Aged About 30 Years R/o H. N. E 500, Near Radha Krishna Mandir Samata Colony, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Divyanka Jethwani D/o Shri Nitin Jethwani Aged About 4 Years Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Darshita Jethwani, R/o H. N. E 500, Near Radha Krishna Mandir Samata Colony, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Naina Kohli, Advocate (through V.C.) For Non-applicant : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate (through V.C.) Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Naina Kohli, learned counsel appearing though video conferencing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Vinay Nagdev, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 learned counsel appearing though video conferencing for the non- applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: A. “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to summon the record from the Ld. Trial Court of Sh Hemant Saraf, Ld Principal Judge Family Court, Raipur in case bearing no Crl MCC/747/2021 titled as Darshita Jethwani Anr Vs Nitin Jethwani and set aside to the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by Sh Hemant Saraf, Ld Principal Judge Family Court, Raipur and allow the revision petition thereby dismiss the petition filed by the respondents or in alternate pass an appropriate order in the interest of justice. B. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such order as deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of non-applicant No. 1 and the applicant was solemnized on 26/11/2018 at Sindhu Palace, B.T.I. Ground, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). From their marital life, a daughter named Divyanka Jethwani was born on 14/09/2020, who is presently residing with her mother, non- applicant No. 1, Mrs. Darshita Jethwani. The non-applicant No. 1 has stated in her application that from the very next day after the marriage, the applicant and his family members started taunting her 3 for bringing insufficient dowry. The applicant and other in-laws mentally harassed and assaulted her by taunting her for not bringing a car in dowry and also threatened to get the applicant married again. She is a highly educated woman and has completed an Interior Designing course; therefore, she even offered to work and earn money. However, due to the applicant’s suspicious nature, he refused to let her work and kept pressuring her to bring dowry from her parental home. After the birth of the daughter, the harassment increased further, and she was abused with filthy language, assaulted, and threatened to be thrown out of the house. In the meantime, the father of the applicant, Mr. Harish Jethwani, threatened the non-applicant’s brother, Mr. Rahul Kingrani, over the phone, stating that she should be taken back to her parental home and that she would only be accepted again if a car was given in dowry. Frightened by this, her brother came to take her on 18/02/2021, and since then, she has been residing at her parental home under the shelter of her brother. The applicant works with his father in accounts and has completed M.Tech. In March 2021, the applicant moved to Pune for employment, and since then, there has been no communication between them. The applicant used to post obscene pictures of other women on his mobile status to tease her, while his parents kept threatening to get him married to another woman for dowry. She made every possible effort to live with the applicant at her matrimonial home, but the applicant does not want to keep her with him. She had submitted a complaint to the Women’s Police Station, Raipur (C.G.), upon which an FIR was 4 registered against the applicant and his father for offences under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC, Crime No. 103/2021. The non- applicant No.1 further states that after being thrown out of the house by the applicant on 18/02/2021, she has been living with her parents and brother at her parental home and has become completely dependent on her elder brother, Rahul Kingrani. She is a simple homemaker woman and has no source of income. After being completely deserted by the applicant, no financial assistance of any kind has been provided to her, due to which she is facing financial hardships. It is further alleged that the applicant is employed as an accountant in Pune (Maharashtra), earning ₹60,000/- (Sixty Thousand Rupees) per month. Apart from this, the applicant has movable and immovable properties from which he earns additional income, making him fully capable of maintaining her. She requires ₹20,000/- (Twenty Thousand Rupees) per month for her living expenses, including house rent, groceries, household items, clothing, medicines, and other necessities, and ₹10,000/- (Ten Thousand Rupees) per month for the education, upbringing, medical expenses, clothing, and other needs of her daughter, thus a total of ₹30,000/- (Thirty Thousand Rupees) per month, which the applicant is capable and legally obligated to provide. Therefore, she prayed before the learned Family Court that she should be awarded monthly maintenance of ₹30,000/- (Thirty Thousand Rupees) from the applicant. 4. In his reply, the applicant has denied the applicant’s claims and submitted that both he and the non-applicant No.1 were acquainted 5 with each other prior to marriage. He is a civil engineer, and the non-applicant No.1 has completed an interior designing course. Both of them worked together in 2015 at an architectural firm named Saksham Jain Associates, and during this period of working together, a mutual love relationship developed between them. The non-applicant No.1’s behavior towards him and his family members has not been good since the marriage. After marriage, the non- applicant No.1 refused to participate in family traditions, religious programs and rituals and showed no interest in joining such functions. When explained, the non-applicant No.1 became extremely angry and started unnecessary quarrels with his mother. The non-applicant No.1 showed no interest in household chores and cooking after marriage. He further states that the non-applicant No.1 used to leave home every day after around 10 a.m. under the pretext of searching for a job and returned late at night. During this time, she neither called the applicant or any family member nor attended their calls. The non-applicant No.1 pressured him to live separately and when he refused, she threatened to implicate him and his family members in false cases. On 18/02/2021, when the non-applicant No.1 expressed her wish to visit her parental home for a week, he permitted her to go, and she called her brother Rahul Kingrani to take her to her parental home. Since then, the non- applicant No.1 neither called him nor attended his calls. He even tried to convince her by visiting her parental home along with his social and family friends, but the non-applicant No.1 refused to return. 6 The applicant is employed as an accountant at Studio A.S.A., Pune (Maharashtra), earning ₹18,000/- (Eighteen Thousand Rupees) per month, pays ₹6,000/- (Six Thousand Rupees) monthly rent in Pune, and also makes monthly credit card payments of ₹6,000/- (Six Thousand Rupees) to SBI and IndusInd Bank. The non-applicant/wife herself is a well-educated woman who was earning even before marriage and during the marital life, and she is also an income tax assessee. As per the Income Tax Returns, her income for the year 2018-19 was ₹2,38,208/- (Two Lakh Thirty- Eight Thousand Two Hundred Eight Rupees), for the year 2019-20 was ₹2,56,500/- (Two Lakh Fifty-Six Thousand Five Hundred Rupees), and for the year 2020-21 was ₹3,35,700/- (Three Lakh Thirty-Five Thousand Seven Hundred Rupees). The non-applicant No.1 herself left the applicant on 18/02/2021 without any reason. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. 5. On 06.09.2022 due to sudden health issue of his father, the applicant herein could not appear before the learned Family Court and proceeded ex-parte. Further on 13.09.2022 the learned Family Court has passed ex-parte order for maintenance then the applicant herein has approached this Court in revision petition CRR No. 1039 of 2022 against the ex-parte order dated 13.09.2022 which has been withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate application under Section 126 of CrPC for setting aside the ex-parte order within a reasonable time. 6. The ex-parte order has been set aside by the learned Family Court and the evidence has been led by both parties. Both the parties 7 have also filed their income affidavit. The learned Family Court concerned after considering the pleadings and upon appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. whereby it was directed the applicant to pay maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 10000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 5000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2/daughter from the date of filing of the application and further directed the applicant to bear Rs. 2000/- for the expenses of the proceedings. Hence this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal and perverse hence not sustainable in eye of law as the Family Court has passed the impugned order without determining the actual income of the applicant. It is submitted that the learned Family Court neither made any finding on what is the actual income of the husband nor made any finding on what are the facts and evidence on the basis of which the quantum of maintenance for the wife and child has been determined. It is important to mention here that the applicant herein has shown his income per month Rs 18000/- by submitting the salary slip and income affidavit and in the contrary no evidence has been led by the non-applicant No. 1(wife) with respect to the income of the applicant herein and expenditures of the non-applicant No 1.It is further submitted that the non- applicant No. 1(wife) has deliberately not filed her bank account statement which is mandatory as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Rajnesh Vs Neha (2020) in Civil Appeal no 9431 of 2019.It is also clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the wife 8 must provide evidence of husband's income to claim maintenance and the maintenance award must be reasonable and based on evidence. He further submits that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order based on no evidence rather on the basis of presumption that since the husband is enough educated, living in Pune city and paying rent of Rs. 6000/-, his income Rs 18000/- per month cannot be acceptable. It is important to mention here that both the applicant and his father is not qualified CA and even not having any professional degree or diploma in accounts however they are doing work relating to accounts for livelihood. It is submitted that the father of the applicant is 12th pass certificate and the applicant is having M.tech degree in civil engineering however the applicant could not secure any job in relevant field hence started working in accounts for livelihood. It is important to mention here that the non-applicant no.1 (wife) has not filed any proof with respect to the income of the applicant. The learned Family Court has passed impugned order against the evidence on the record and based on presumption while determining the first issue herein are living whether non-applicants separately due to sufficient and proper reasons. It is submitted that it is admitted by the non-applicant No. 1 herein (wife) during her cross-examination that the marriage was love cum arrange, the family members of both parties were known to each other and no demand of car was made before the marriage. It was also admitted that the non-applicant No 1 (wife) used to say that the applicant was narrow minded as she was not allow to work. It was also admitted by PW 2 Smt Komal Kingrani (mother-in-law of 9 the applicant) that no dowry was demanded by the applicant and his family members before the marriage however the mother-in-law has not deposed that the non-applicant No 1 was living separately because she was tortured for dowry by the applicant and his family members hence the presumption of the Family Court, on the basis of registration of police complain for torture and cruelty against the applicant and his father, as the sufficient and proper reason for living separately was wrong and incorrect and not sustainable in eye of law. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Non- applicant No. 1(wife) has filed complaint before the police on 31.07.2021 i.e. after five month from the date of separation and no complaint of any kind was ever made before 31.07.2021. The trial Court has also not considered the fact that the FIR in matrimonial cases will be registered automatically if it will not be settled in counselling. That the non-applicant No. 1 has no reasonable cause to left the matrimonial thus not entitled for any maintenance. The learned Family Court has not considered the income affidavit filed by both parties. The applicant has annexed salary slip, bank account statement to show his income and also annexed rent agreement to show his expenses per contra the Non-applicant No 1 neither filed her bank statement nor filed any document to show her expenses. The wife herself left the house of her husband and resided with her daughter in her own will and wishes. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 10 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants 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 an application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per month. Upon appreciation of the facts, evidence and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application and directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance to the Non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 5000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.2/daughter from the date of filing of application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expenses granted Rs.15000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicants, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, 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. 11 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 trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal