1 2025:CGHC:34645 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1190 of 2024 Pankaj Kumar Shukla S/o Late Bhanu Prasad Shukla Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Kaitha, At Present R/o Barpali Chowk Champa, Tahsil Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Sangita Shukla W/o Pankaj Shukla Aged About 35 Years D/o Murli Manohar Tiwari, Occupation Nothing, R/o Sonia Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Unnati Shukla D/o Pankaj Shukla Aged About 14 Years Through Legal Mother Smt. Sangita Shukla, R/o Sonia Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Hanshika Shukla D/o Pankaj Shukla Aged About 10 Years Through Legal Mother Smt. Sangita Shukla, R/o Sonia Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Satyendra Mahadewa, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 applicant. Also heard Mr. Satyendra Mahadewa, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicants. 2. By way of this revision petition, the applicant prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that the revision may kindly be allowed by setting aside the order impugned order dated 26.09.2024, passed in Cr. M.J.C. No. 22/2021, by the learned Family Court at Raigarh (C.G.) whereby maintenance of Rs. 12000/- per month has been granted to the non-applicants, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of non-applicant No. 1 with the applicant was solemnized on 06.05.2006 in village Urdana, Police Line, Raigarh as per Hindu law, caste and customs and from their co-habitation daughter Unnati Shukla was born on 24.02.2007 and daughter Hansika Shukla was born on 11.05.2011, who are presently residing with the non-applicant No.1. It is also an admitted fact in the case that a case under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has been filed by the non- applicant, in which 10,000/- per month amount has already been granted in her favour. The application form of the non-applicants are briefly as follows that at the time of marriage, the non applicant’s No.1 parents and relatives provided household goods, jewelry and clothes etc. as per their capacity. Thereafter, the non-applicant No.1 went to the native village of the applicant Kaitha and started living her married life by performing her duties and wifely duties. After the birth of the second daughter, the applicant's behaviour became 3 cruel towards the non-applicant No.1 and he started abusing her on every small thing. When the non-applicant No.1 asked the applicant to get sterilized, he said that he would not get sterilized until she had a son and that too she would not get it done. The applicant used to force the non-applicant to go to her maternal home by abusing and beating her, saying that the he only wanted a son. The applicant started harassing the non-applicant No.1 by calling her characterless and saying that she had an illicit relationship with the son of the uncle of the non-applicant, i.e. the brother of the non- applicant and tried to kill her, but the non-applicant No.1 kept tolerating everything keeping in mind the future of the children. It is further pleaded that even when the non-applicant No.1 talked to her family on mobile phone, she was beaten up on the basis of suspicion and called characterless and tried to kill her by grabbing her neck. On 11.07.2018, the applicant beat up the non- applicant No.1 severely and sent her to her maternal home, as a result of which the non-applicant No.1 started living in her maternal home out of compulsion. The non-applicant No.1 did not file a report against the applicant and his family members regarding the harassment and atrocities done to her in the belief that in future the applicant's behavior will change and he will take her with him, but this did not happen. After the non-applicant No.1 started living in her maternal home from 11.07.2018, the applicant has not made any arrangement for the maintenance of the non-applicant No.1. The non-applicant No.1 does not have any means or source of income for her own maintenance and she is compelled to live by 4 depending on her maternal family members. The applicant is posted on the post of Shift Incharge in Prakash Industries, from which he receives a monthly salary of about Rs 50,000/-, apart from this the applicant has 10 acres of agricultural land, from which he receives an income of about five lakh rupees per year. In the above situation, the non applicants should be given Rs 25,000/- per month as maintenance amount from the applicant. 4. The applicant herein, while denying the averments made the application, has mainly stated in his reply that after marriage, the non-applicant No.1 stayed in her in-laws' village Kaitha, Tehsil Jaijaipur for only one week, after which later, she started harassing the applicant for not staying in the village and for taking her to Champa, the place of the non-applicant's planning due to her obstinacy and willfulness, the non-applicant No.1 has left her husband's house and is staying at her parent's house, depriving the applicant of conjugal happiness and fatherly love, pampering. The applicant has never refused to provide maintenance to the non applicants and is trying to keep the non applicants with him. The applicant has never been unhappy with the birth of daughters and has never behaved cruelly or abused them. The non-applicant No.1 herself did not want to go through family planning and used to tell the applicant that she wants a son, and she used to say that going through family planning will affect the applicant's beauty, so she did not go through family planning. The applicant never expressed the desire to have a son, nor did the applicant beat the non-applicant No.1, nor did he force the non-applicants to go to their parents' 5 house. Further pleaded in reply that, the non-applicant No.1 used to talk to her distant uncle's son on the phone all day long and called him to their residence repeatedly. Despite the applicant's refusal, she used to say that she would stay as per her wish. The non- applicant No.1 clearly told the applicant that she will not listen to the applicant in this regard, the applicant can do whatever he wants. The non-applicant No.1 did not talk to her maternal family, but to the son of that alleged uncle and the conversation continued till about 3- 4 o'clock in the night. The applicant never tried to strangle the non- applicant No.1 nor did he ever beat her. The non-applicant No.1 is making false allegations against the applicant. The non-applicant No.1 has gone to her maternal home with both the minor daughters without informing the applicant and they filed a complaint of domestic violence in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, where an interim maintenance order has been passed in favor of the non-applicants on 13.11.2019, under which the applicant is providing Rs. 10,000/- per month to the non applicants from time to time. 5. According to the reply, the aforesaid order has been challenged by the applicant before the learned appellate Court, which is pending. The applicant is working as a Junior Officer in Prakash Industries, Power Limited, Janjgir-Champa, which is a lower category than the post of Shift Incharge, where he is posted as a Junior Officer. Monthly salary of Rs. 18,195/- is received. The applicant has never refused to keep the non applicants with him. The non-applicant has grown up in a modern environment, which has an alienated attitude 6 and there is a complete lack of sense of duty. 6. As per reply, the applicant’s total monthly expenditure is alleged to be Rs. 12,590/-. Apart from the above, the amount of insurance premium of both the daughters goes directly from the salary of the applicant to the insurance company and similarly the premium amount related to the insurance of the applicant also goes to the insurance company. The non-applicant's father had given a two- wheeler, a motor cycle, as a gift to the applicant on the occasion of her marriage. The non-applicant No.1 forcefully pressurized the applicant to park the said motor cycle from her possession since the beginning of 2018 by telling him that he had no right to keep it as it was given to him by her father. 7. According to the reply, the non-applicant No.1 sold the said motor cycle for Rs. 13,000/-, as a result of which the applicant had to toil for about a month by commuting by bicycle from his residence to the employed institution, after which the applicant was forced to purchase a two-wheeler by taking a loan on the basis of his insurance policy to purchase the vehicle. The applicant is currently facing problems in the ongoing in the period of global corona pandemic, salary is not being paid regularly since March 2020, rather one month's salary is paid only after 3-4 months. The applicant also could not escape the corona pandemic and he was under continuous treatment for 18 days. The non-applicants have misled the court by submitting a false application and affidavit contrary to the law, which should be dismissed with costs. 8. The learned Family Court on the basis of the pleading and evidence 7 adduced by the parties, partly allowed the application of the non- applicants filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and allowed the maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 3,000/- per month each to non-applicant No.2 and 3 (total 12,000/-per months towards maintenance), hence this revision. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that, he clearly established the case by narrating the facts and evidences that, the she left the matrimonial house without any sufficient reason and cause, and she has sufficient means to maintain herself and her children. He further submits that the learned Family Court further failed to consider that the non-applicant No.1 used to talk to her distant uncle's son on the phone all day long and called him to their residence repeatedly, despite the applicant's refusal, she used to say that she would stay as per her wish. The applicant clearly told the non-applicant No.1 that she will not listen to him in this regard, the applicant can do whatever he wants. The non-applicant No.1 did not talk to her maternal family, but to the son of that alleged uncle and the conversation continued till about 3-4 o'clock in the night, therefore finding of the learned Family Court against the applicant is bad in law as well as against the basic principle of natural justice. The learned Family Court further failed to appreciate the fact that, the non applicant has gone to her maternal home with both the minor daughters without informing the applicant. The non-applicants have filed a complaint of domestic violence in the Court of Judicial 8 Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, where an interim maintenance order has been passed in favor of the non applicants on 13.11.2019, under which the applicant is providing Rs. 10,000/- per month to the non applicants. The learned Family Court further failed to appreciate the fact that, applicant is working as a Junior Officer in Prakash Industries and Power Limited, Janjgir-Champa, which is a lower category than the post of Shift Incharge, where he is posted as a Junior Officer. Monthly salary of Rs. 18,195/- is received. The applicant's family jointly owns only one acre of agricultural land, which is given on lease, which gives an annual income of about Rs. 9,500/-, in which all have equal share as the name of the applicant's two brothers and widowed mother are registered. The learned Family Court further failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant has expenses Rs. 4,000/- as rent of residential house, Rs. 1,500/- as payment to dependent mother, Rs. 2,000/- as household ration expenses, Rs. 1,500/- for two-wheeler petrol maintenance, Rs. 1,000/- for court transport expenses, Rs. 300/- for mobile recharge and Rs. 600/- for milk. Domestic Gas Fuel Rs. 900/-, TV Cable Charges Rs. 180/-, Electricity Bill Rs. 110/-, Hair Cutting Salon Rs. 500/-, thus total monthly expenditure is alleged to be Rs. 12,590/-. Apart from the above, the amount of insurance premium of both the daughters goes directly from the salary of the applicant to the insurance company and similarly the premium amount related to the insurance of the applicant also goes to the insurance company. The learned Family Court further failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant is currently facing problems in the ongoing in the period of 9 global corona pandemic, salary is not being paid regularly since March 2020, rather one month's salary is paid only after 3-4 months. The applicant also could not escape the corona pandemic and he was under continuous treatment for 18 days. The non- applicants have misled the court by submitting a false application and affidavit contrary to the law. Therefore the order passed by the learned Family Court is deserves to be set aside. 10. 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 learned 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. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 12. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicants before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the applicant. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court passed the judgment on 26.09.2024, whereby directed the applicant to pay Rs. 6000/-per month towards maintenance amount to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 3000/- per month each to the Non-applicant Nos.2 and 3 because they are minor ( total 12000/- as maintenance) and while passing the said order, the learned Family Court, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on 10 them and expected expenses granted Rs.12000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicants, which cannot be said to be shockingly on a higher side. 13. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal