1 2025:CGHC:29203 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1395 of 2019 Manisha Kashyap W/o Dharmendra @ Yadunandan Kaushik Aged About 30 Years R/o Chuchuhiyapara, Opposite Lallu Pan Thela, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Dharmendra @ Yadunandan Kaushik S/o Ram Ganesh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Manpahari, Police Station Junapara, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Manish Kashyap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manish Kashyap, learned counsel, on behalf of Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Rohitashva Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.01 10:57:45 +0530 2 “ It is therefore, that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and modify/enhance impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned Family Court Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 560/2018 between parties Manisha Kashyap Vs. Dharmendra @ Yadunandan Kaushik and also may kindly be granted maintenance amount sought by the applicant in application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice. ” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the applicant and the respondent solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites, rituals, and customs. The respondent were residing together peacefully, and after 3-4 years of marriage, the respondent started harassing and torturing the applicant physically and mentally without any reason. The respondent also demanded that the applicant bring money as dowry from her parents, failing which he refused to live with her. Although there was a compromise between both parties to live together, the respondent did not change his behaviour and continued to misbehave with the applicant. The applicant further stated that the respondent used to beat and quarrel with her and eventually forced her out of the matrimonial home. The respondent then solemnized a second marriage with another woman. Due to these reasons, the applicant is residing with her parents. It is also stated that the respondent is a 3 veterinary doctor, running his own clinic, and earns Rs. 30,000- 40,000/- per month. Additionally, he owns 8 acres of agricultural land and earns approximately Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum. Therefore, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the respondent. 4. The respondent appeared before the learned Family Court and denied the contentions raised by the applicant. However, the learned Family Court, after hearing both parties, allowed the maintenance application and granted a very meagre maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant vide its order dated 18.09.2019. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The applicant left her matrimonial house due to the cruelty inflicted upon her by the respondent, and she has suffered both mentally and physically. He submits that the learned Family Court has failed to consider that the respondent is running a veterinary clinic and earns an income of Rs. 35,000-40,000/- per month. Additionally, he owns 8 acres of agricultural land and earns Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum, which provides him with sufficient income for his livelihood. However, while passing the impugned order, the learned Court ignored these facts and awarded a very meagre maintenance amount, which is liable to be enhanced. He further submits that the learned Family Court has committed an error in appreciating the evidence on record regarding the sources of income of the respondent and has wrongly given findings in this regard. Thus, the maintenance amount is liable to be 4 enhanced. The applicant has submitted documents to prove the income of the respondent. Despite this, the respondent has neglected his responsibility and does not wish to reside with the applicant. Hence, the maintenance amount is liable to be enhanced, and the applicant may kindly be granted the maintenance amount as sought in her application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. He also submits that the respondent has never made any effort to live with the applicant, while the applicant has tried to reside with the respondent at her matrimonial home, but the respondent has continuously tortured and harassed the applicant without any reason. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the maintenance amount may kindly be enhanced in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 2000/- to the applicant, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by 5 the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek