1 2025:CGHC:41486 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1206 of 2024 1 - Smt. Purvi Jain Bohra W/o Ritesh Jain Bohra Aged About 29 Years D/o Gautam Chand Lalwani, R/o Permanent Address - Laxmi Variety Centre, Jawahar Market, Camp - 02, Power House, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Seyaan Bohra S/o Ritesh Bohra, Aged About 3.5 Years, Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Purvi Jain Bohra, R/o Permanent Address - Laxmi Variety Centre, Jawahar Market, Camp - 02, Power House, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Ritesh Bohra S/o Suresh Bohra Aged About 29 Years R/o D - 348, Sector - 05, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sumit Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. K. Rohan, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the revision petition and further be pleased to enhance the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per month for Applicant No. 1 and Rs. 25,000/- per month for the Applicant No. 2, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant No. 1 solemnized marriage with the non-applicant on 01.07.2014 as per the Hindu customs. Further, a son namely Seyaan Bohra was born out of their wedlock on 06.07.2015. After the marriage, the applicant No. 1 and non-applicant started residing at her matrimonial house in Raipur along with her father-in-law and mother-in-law. Soon after the marriage, within about two-three months, the parents-in-law of the applicant No. 1 along with the non-applicant started mistreating her, saying that she did not bring sufficient dowry at the time of marriage, treated her like a maid, neglected her, etc. The matrimonial discord between the non-applicant and the applicant No. 1 persisted throughout and on 15.05.2018, the applicant No. 1 was expelled from her matrimonial house when the applicant No. 1 failed to meet the demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by her parents-in-law. Thereafter, due to lack of financial hardship and circumstances occurred, the applicant No. 1 moved an application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Learned Family Court, Raipur which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 168/2019. 3 The applicants averred in the Plaint that the applicant No. 1 started residing at her matrimonial house with the non-applicant, her father-in-law and her mother-in-law. However, soon after the marriage, the non-applicant and father-in-law and mother-in-law of the applicant No. 1 started demanding for money from her and started harassing her in lieu of the demand. Further, the applicant No.1 was consistently mistreated and harassed at her matrimonial home at the hands of the non-applicant and her father-in-law and mother-in-law. Additionally, the applicant has also averred in the Plaint that the applicant No. 1 was neglected, treated as a maid, and was not given food at her matrimonial home and she was not taken to hospitals/clinics for any check-up whenever she fell ill. It is further averred in the Plaint that at the time of delivery of the applicant No. 2/Seyaan, the hospital had informed the family members of the applicant No. 1 that there are some complexities in the delivery due to which the applicant No. 1 needs to be operated for the delivery of the baby. When the non-applicant got to know about this, he denied to bear the medical expenses of the surgery/operation and asked the father of the applicant No. 1 to bear the expenses if he wishes to save his daughter i.e. applicant No. 1. Therefore, the father of the Applicant No. 1 spent Rs. 3,00,000/- for the said operation. It is further averred in the Plaint that on 15.05.2018, the non-applicant and the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the applicant No. 1 demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakh Rupees) from her. The applicant No. 1 was thrown out of her matrimonial house when she conveyed her inability to fulfill the 4 demands of the non-applicant and her in-laws. Compelled by her circumstances, the applicant No. 1 sought shelter at her paternal home after being thrown out of her matrimonial home. The applicant No. 1 is unemployed and is dependent on her parents to meet the needs of her as well as her minor son. Subsequently, the applicant No. 1 aggrieved by the harassment she sustained at the hands of the non-applicant and her parents-in-law, the applicant No. 1 made a written complaint at the Mahila Thana, Raipur, on 03.10.2018, and on the basis of her complaint, an F.I.R. bearing No. 38/2018 was registered which subsequently culminated into a criminal case which is currently pending before the Learned J.M.F.C., Raipur under Section 498-A, 34 of I.P.C. Additionally, the applicant filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act against the non-applicant and 4. The Non-applicant in his written statement has admitted that he and the applicant No. 1 are married and applicant No. 2 is their son born in the wedlock. However, the non-applicant has denied the allegations of harassment and ill-treatment of the applicant No. 1 at the hands of the non-applicant and his parents. The non-applicant has denied that there was any demand of money from the applicant No. 1. The non-applicant has claimed that the applicant No. 1 was taken care of properly and the applicant No.1 was not made to work at home as they have four house helpers who look after the needs of the family, and one Shakun Bai (house help) was specifically asked to look after the needs of the applicant No. 1. The non-applicant further stated in his written statement that all the health and medical 5 needs of the applicant No. 1 were also looked after. The non- applicant No. 1 has also claimed that the applicant No. 1 is an educated woman holding a B.Com degree and is a qualified C.S. (Company Secretary), and that she has been working since before the marriage till date. It is also averred by the non-applicant in the written statement that he has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and wants to reside together with the applicants and further states that it is the applicant No. 1 who does not wish to reside with him and wants a divorce. The non-applicant has further averred that he was even ready to shift to a different house and live separately from his parents but in Raipur city itself, but the applicant No. 1wants him to live separately in Durg, which is unacceptable to the non-applicant. 5. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants and awarded a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Rupees Only) in favor of the applicant No. 1/Wife and maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand Rupees Only) in favor of the applicant No. 2/Son till his majority vide order dated 17.10.2024 (Annexure A/1) and further ordered that the interim maintenance amount earlier granted shall be adjusted. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicant No. 1 was thrown out of her matrimonial home on 15.05.2018 by her father-in- law and mother-in-law as she did not meet their demand of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Five Lakh Rupees Only) by stating that the dowry 6 brought by her at the time of marriage was insufficient. The learned Family Court ought to have appreciated the inflation in the current economy and that Rs. 10,000/- per month for wife and Rs. 5,000/- for the minor son at today's day and age is very meagre amount, and very little to sustain financially. The learned Family Court ought to have considered the factor of education expenses, tuition expenses, food and clothing expenses, medical expenses and other miscellaneous financial needs of the applicant No. 2 while awarding the maintenance, as the applicant No. 1 is unemployed and is taking care of the expenses of the applicant No. 2 with extreme difficulties. It is humbly submitted that a meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month is not sufficient to sustain the needs of a growing child. The learned Family Court has not considered the tuition fee, academic fee of applicant No. 2 (Seyaan) which has been exhibited during the trial. Further, the applicant No. 2 suffers from Asthma which requires added medical expenses. He further submits that the standard of living of wife, increased cost of living, is a valid ground to be considered to decide quantum of maintenance and/or to enhance the maintenance amount granted to the wife and the child. The learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that the non- applicant is employed at Anupchand Trilokchand Jewelry store sand the non-applicant has intentionally not disclosed his true income and has not filed his bank statements and I.T.R. Returns in along with his Rajnesh vs Neha Affidavit. Additionally, the learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that the husband has admitted in his cross-examination that the parents of the non- 7 applicant have independent source of income as his father works at Sumit Jewelers, Raipur and that his mother also earns through interests from loan/mortgage work, and therefore, the non-applicant and his family is financially very capable.Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be modified/set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants 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. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. 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 applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-per month to the applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 5000/- per month to the applicant No.2/son (total 15,000/- per month as maintenance), observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 8 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. 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