1 2025:CGHC:25101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 43 of 2018 Smt. Urmila Gupta W/o Ramkumar Gupta, Aged About 36 Years D/o Late Anuj Ram Gupta, Presently Residing At Quarter No E /87, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Ramkumar Gupta S/o Mathura Prasad Gupta, Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Naya Talab, Korba Road, Shriram Bartan Bhandar, Baloda, Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of respondent when the case is called out of hearing. 2. Heard Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.20 11:26:25 +0530 2 following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to call the record and allow this revision and set-aside the order dated 30.12.2017 and grant maintenance to the applicant as per her application in the Family Court, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 14,000/- per month before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.). It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.04.2000 at Gurunanak Dharamshala, Bilaspur. Out of the said wedlock, one son, Ritik Gupta, and one daughter, Kumari Swati Gupta, were born. The applicant and the respondent are presently residing separately. During the applicant’s pregnancy with her son, the respondent tortured and harassed her without any valid reason and demanded that the expenses for the delivery be borne by the applicant’s maternal family. The applicant bore all the delivery expenses herself. The respondent habitually abused and physically assaulted the applicant without cause. When the applicant informed the respondent’s about the abuse, they supported the respondent and eventually separated the respondent and his family from themselves. The respondent was allegedly in an illicit relationship with one Nirmala Patel of village Nirtu, a vegetable vendor. He brought her into the matrimonial home and established physical relations with her, as informed to the applicant by domestic 3 help and other persons. When the applicant tried to intervene, the respondent allegedly threatened to kill her by poisoning or burning. Fearing for her life, the applicant remained silent. She also informed the respondent’s parents, but they supported him in this matter as well. Due to continuous harassment, torture, and ill-treatment by the respondent, the applicant attempted suicide near the railway line at Champa. However, a priest from a nearby temple intervened, consoled her, and sent her back home. 5. The applicant made complaints to several respected members of society and also lodged a complaint at Police Station Baloda on 02.10.2016. She was advised to approach the Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, where she filed a complaint on 20.10.2016. However, the complaint yielded no effective result. The applicant belongs to the Gupta community and is unable to work as a laborer due to social constraints. On the other hand, the respondent is financially well-off and owns a metal shop in Baloda from which he earns approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month. Therefore, the applicant seeks maintenance of Rs. 14,000/- per month. The respondent denied the allegations made in the application except for the admitted facts. He also made counter-allegations regarding the applicant’s behavior. The respondent claimed that he had purchased a house at Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, in the name of the applicant. The said house was constructed by the Bilaspur Development Authority, and the applicant receives a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/- from it. The respondent further stated that his metal business was started with a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- 4 taken from Punjab National Bank, which is still under mortgage. The applicant left the matrimonial house on 02.10.2016, taking ornaments and other belongings. The respondent allegedly requested her to return home, but she refused. The respondent submitted that his income is uncertain and that he incurs expenses for the education of the children in addition to repaying the bank loan. The respondent has also filed a judgment and decree of restitution of conjugal rights, which was passed ex parte by the Family Court, Janjgir-Champa. Based on the pleadings of both parties, two issues were framed and decided against the applicant. After recording the evidence and hearing the arguments of both sides, the Court passed the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is bad both on facts and in law. The order of the learned Family Court is based on conjectures and surmises. She submits that the learned Family Court ought to have granted maintenance to the applicant. The learned Family Court wrongly held that the applicant did not lodge a complaint with the police, whereas the applicant had, in fact, filed a complaint at Police Station Baloda on 02.10.2016. The police at Baloda informed her that it was not a matter in which police intervention was warranted. She further submits that the police also advised the applicant to approach the Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, where she filed an application on 20.10.2016. However, due to the non-cooperation of the respondent, the proceedings became infructuous. She further submits that the learned Trial Court ignored the fact that the 5 judgment and decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the respondent was passed ex parte. The learned Family Court at Janjgir-Champa did not order substituted service through publication, which is essential in matrimonial cases. She further submits that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is not a decree that the respondent can merely keep in his pocket. Such a decree must be executed in accordance with the provisions laid down in Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Family Court ignored the fact that the respondent filed the application for restitution of conjugal rights only after submitting his reply to the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which clearly indicates that it was an afterthought and a tactic to avoid paying maintenance to the applicant. Hence the applicant is entitled for grant of maintenance. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From the perusal of the impugned order, the learned Family Court held that the applicant, Smt. Urmila Gupta (PW-01), stated in paragraph 37 of her cross-examination that she had no knowledge that the respondent had filed a case in the Family Court, Janjgir- Champa, for taking her back. She further stated that if the respondent truly wished to take her back, he should have personally come to her parental home to take her. In paragraph 38, she denied having received any notice from the Family Court, Janjgir-Champa. However, the respondent had indeed filed Civil Suit No. 119A/2017, 6 titled Ramkumar Gupta vs. Smt. Urmila Gupta, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Janjgir- Champa, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In that matter, an ex parte judgment was passed on 15.09.2017, directing the applicant to resume conjugal life with the respondent within two months. Despite the order, the applicant did not comply. On the basis of the above facts, it was established that the applicant did not have sufficient or justified reason to live separately from the respondent. It was also proven that the applicant was not entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant. Therefore, order passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, is just and proper, as such, I do not find any good ground for interference in this revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek