1 2025:CGHC:45452 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 988 of 2025 1 - Smt. Poonam Patel W/o Shailendra Patel Aged About 34 Years R/o Vill. Sivnikala, Tahsil Kurud, District- Dhamtari , C.G. 2 - Jayesh Patel S/o Shailendra Patel Aged About 8 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Poonam Patel, R/o Vill. Sivnikala, Tahsil Kurud, District- Dhamtari , C.G. 3 - Chirayu Patel S/o Shailendra Patel Aged About 6 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Poonam Patel, R/o Vill. Sivnikala, Tahsil Kurud, District- Dhamtari , C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Shri Shailendra Patel S/o Binduram Patel Aged About 41 Years R/o Vill. Jhalmala, Tahsil And District-Balod, C.G., Present R/o Tuliip 369 Talpuri Bhilai, Tah. And District Durg C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Smt. Deepa Ramteke, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.09.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “Therefore it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly allow this revision and the impugned order dated 07/07/2025 passed by the Family Court, District - KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Dhamtari Chhattisgarh in Misc. Cr. Case No. 70/2024, may kindly be modified and grant adequate maintenance in favour of the petitioners/applicant and also grant complete educational and medical expenses of the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that it is an admitted fact in the present case that applicant No.1, Smt. Poonam Patel, was married to the Non-Applicant on 24.05.2014 according to social customs and rituals at Village Sewanikala, District Dhamtari, and both are husband and wife. From their matrimonial relationship, two sons were born, namely applicant No.2, Jayesh Patel, and applicant No.3, Chirayu Patel. In her application, applicant No.1 alleged that after marriage, she started living with her husband and performing her matrimonial duties. At the time of marriage, her father gave gifts according to his financial capacity. Even thereafter, the mother and sister of the Non-applicant used to taunt her, alleging that she had brought insufficient dowry. The Non-Applicant, after consuming liquor, quarreled with her, cast aspersions on her character, and used abusive language. The parties started residing in a rented house at Padmanabhpur, Durg, but the behavior of the Non- applicant and his family members did not change. The applicant No.1 worked for about one year and five months in Maharana Pratap Nursing College, during which her parents-in-law pressured her to quit her job. Their elder son, Jayesh, was born on 24.11.2017. Even during this period, the applicant No.1 tolerated all harassment and continued her matrimonial life. 3 After the death of her elder brother, his wife (who was also Applicant No.1’s younger sister) came to live at her parental home, and at that point, all the family members started harassing the aplicant. Her second son, Chirayu, was born on 03.05.2019. On 30.05.2019, after the ritual of “Mool Nakshatra Todne ki Puja” of Chirayu, a major dispute arose. The Non-Applicant called the applicant’s parents, who came along with Anil Patel and Prakash (sons of the applicant’s paternal aunt). From 7:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., disputes continued. Finally, the father of the Non-applicant, influenced by his wife and daughter, told the parents of the applicant No.1 to take her and the children back, whereas the applicant No.1 wanted to stay at her matrimonial home. Since then, the Non- applicant has not taken care of his wife and children, nor has he provided any financial support. Occasionally, when he visited, he did not give any household expenses. The expenses of the applicants are being borne by the applicant No.1’s parents and by her own earnings. The Non-applicant is employed in a private job after completing MBA, earning ₹15,000/- per month. He owns a house at Durg jointly with his brother, and also possesses 3 acres of agricultural land at Jhalmala from which an annual income of ₹60,000/- is generated. Their elder son Jayesh is studying in Class II and the younger son Chirayu in Class I, for which approximately ₹12,000/- is spent annually. Therefore, applicant No.1 has prayed for grant of ₹10,000/- per month as maintenance allowance for herself and the children from the Non-applicant. 4 3. The Non-applicant filed his reply before the trial Court concerned, wherein he denied the allegations of the applicants and opposed the application. He submitted that the “Mool Nakshatra Todne ki Puja” was held on 30.05.2019, at which time the applicant No.1 was studying at a Nursing College in Raipur and residing there. On 30.05.2019, the father of his wife dropped her at her matrimonial home, but on the very same day, the wife of her own free will went back to Raipur. The Non-applicant stated that he works at Durg, while his wife was studying at Dhamtari and later employed in Raipur, so he used to visit her and bear her expenses. Both children are studying in government schools, where no fees are charged, and books and uniforms are provided free of cost. The applicant No.1 is employed in a private job and earns ₹25,000/- per month, whereas the Non-applicant earns only ₹15,000/- per month. He also denied having any agricultural land in his name. In his specific statements, the Non-applicant further submitted that about one and a half months after marriage, the applicant No.1 went to Dhamtari to pursue Nursing studies. Her mother was also working there as a nurse. The applicant No.1 continued her studies for two years at Dhamtari, during which the Non-Applicant bore all her expenses and used to visit her every Sunday to take care of her. Later, when the wife secured a job at Raipur Nursing College, she started residing there. The Non-Applicant, while living in Durg, used to visit her at Raipur and bear her expenses. On 30.05.2023, after the ritual, the wife quarreled with her father-in-law under the pretext of arranging household items, and on the next day, without any 5 reason, called the police and left the matrimonial home. Presently, the applicant No.1/wife is residing at her parental home of her own choice. 4. The learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence and material available on record and hearing both the parties, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 07.07.2025. By the said order, the Family Court rejected the application of applicant No.1 on the ground that she is living separately without any sufficient cause; however, it directed the non-applicant to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month each to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 till they attain majority. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicant No.1's statement has not been heard by the Family Court, which is against the principle of natural justice. It is the rule of nature that only a mother can raise her children properly. No one else. Even if it is the children's grandparents, father. She further submits that the non- applicant is a wealthy person and has a high standard of living. If the applicant No.1 lives with the non-applicant, he will keep her in the same condition in which he himself lives. Which has not been seen by the Family Court. Because, not giving the applicant an opportunity to produce evidence is against the principles of natural justice.Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court concerned, it transpires that an amount of ₹2,000/- per 6 month each has been awarded as maintenance to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (who are son). At the same time, the application of applicant No. 1 (the wife) was rejected on the ground that she is living separately from the non-applicant without any just and sufficient reason. In such circumstances, applicant No. 1 is not entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant. It appears that the learned trial Court, upon proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting maintenance solely to the minor child, considering their dependent status and the legal obligation of the father to maintain them. The absence of any finding or relief in favor of applicant No. 1 indicates that the Court did not find sufficient grounds to allow her claim for maintenance, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be either erroneous or unjustified. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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