1 2025:CGHC:48738 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1167 of 2025 Santosh Vishwakarma S/o Late Shri Sitaram Aged About 28 Years R/o Kherha Coal Mines, Budhar, District- Sahdol, M.P. Permanent R/o Village- Dhangawa, P.S. Jaithari, District- Anuppur, M.P. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Varsha Vishwakarma W/o Shri Santosh Vishwakarma Aged About 27 Years D/o Manoj Vishwakarma, R/o Block No.- 1, Laxmi Bai Colony, Pandavpara, P.S. Patna, District- Koriya, C.G. 2 - Shivanshi Vishwakarma D/o Shri Santosh Vishwakarma Aged About 9 Years (Minor) In Care Of Mother Smt. Varsha Vishwakarma, R/o Block No.- 1, Laxmi Bai Colony, Pandavpara, P.S. Patna, District- Koriya, C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Pritam Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.09.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 may kindly be set-aside and the revision may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No.1 was married to the applicant. From the very day of marriage, the applicant allegedly KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 started harassing her for dowry and taunting her. It is stated that at the time of marriage, her father had already given a large number of items, including a Honda Shine motorcycle, fridge, cooler, TV, cupboard, washing machine, sofa set, bed, and various household articles, along with a gold chain and ring for the applicant. In addition, an amount of ₹2,00,000/- in cash was also given as per the applicant’s demand. After the marriage, when Non-applicant No.1 went to her matrimonial home, the applicant allegedly complained that her father had promised to give a car but failed to do so and on this pretext, he started ill-treating and harassing her. Despite her explaining that her father could not afford a car due to the education expenses of her two brothers, the applicant continued to trouble and assault her. On the first wedding anniversary, the Non-applicant No.1 discovered she was pregnant. When she requested medical treatment, the applicant allegedly abused her, demanding ₹5,00,000/- from her parental home for her treatment, otherwise threatening to kill her and remarry. She remained at her matrimonial home for about three months in a weak and unhealthy condition. Finally, she telephoned her father, pleading to be taken back as her health was deteriorating. Her parents and brothers came, but the applicant allegedly reiterated his demand for ₹5,00,000/- and told them to take her away if the money was not paid. Considering her pregnancy, her parents brought her back to their home at Pandavpara, where she was treated and subsequently delivered a daughter, Shivangi, who is now nine months old. The applicant neither came to see the child nor enquired about them, and he 3 avoided phone calls. Subsequently the Non-applicant No.1 alleges that later she received information from relatives that the applicant, lured by ₹5,00,000/-, was intending to contract another marriage. She then filed a complaint before Sakhi Centre, Baikunthpur. There, the applicant and his mother assured that no further demands would be made and that she would be treated well. On this assurance, the Non-applicant No.1 joined her husband at his workplace in Dhanpuri, Budhar, on 14.07.2024. However, his conduct did not change and again she was allegedly harassed to bring ₹5,00,000/-.On 10.09.2024, the applicant sustained a finger injury at work. Around the same time, Non-applicant No.1 had filled a form for the Hostel Superintendent examination scheduled for 15.09.2024. She went to her parental home with her brother to appear in the exam. Meanwhile, the applicant went to his home at Jaithari. After the exam, on 16.09.2024, she returned to Jaithari with her brother, but the applicant allegedly refused to talk to her and again demanded ₹5,00,000/-, threatening that unless she brought the money, he would have nothing to do with her, and if she forcibly tried to stay, he would kill her. On 17.09.2024 (7:00 PM), using the pretext of a foul smell in the bathroom, he assaulted her. She cried out, and a neighbor, Chhotu Vishwakarma, intervened. On 18.09.2024 (10:00 PM), he again allegedly assaulted her, throttled her neck, and left her unconscious, assuming she had died. Around 5:00 AM, when her mother-in-law stepped out, she managed to escape and called her parental home from a neighbor’s phone. Her brothers and mother came to Jaithari. On seeing them, the applicant allegedly gathered 4 some villagers and began vandalism. Her brother somehow reached Police Station Jaithari with help, whereupon the police intervened. However, according to her, the police did not properly register her complaint nor conduct her medical examination, and only registered Crime No.495/2024 under Sections 352 and 115(2) IPC against the applicant.The Non-applicant No.1 further states that the applicant has never taken care of her or the child. She has become weak and unable to maintain herself due to the cruelty and harassment. The applicant is employed as a Fitter at SECL, Kherha Coal Mines, earning about ₹40,000/- per month. Additionally, he owns 5 acres of ancestral agricultural land, yielding about ₹20,000/- per month. Thus, the Non-applicants claim a maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month from the applicant. 3. The applicant filed his reply and has denied all allegations except the admitted facts mentioned in paragraph 02 of the application. He states that at the time of Tilak, the bride’s family voluntarily gave ₹51,000/- in cash and household items. The gold chain and ring were taken back by Non-applicant No.1 herself, and no jewelry remains with him. He and his family always treated Non-applicant No.1 well and never demanded ₹5,00,000/- or a four-wheeler. The Honda Shine SP motorcycle was given voluntarily by her father as a gift. Regarding the incidents of September 2024, on 17.09.2024, his mother merely asked Non-applicant No.1 to pour water in the bathroom, but she misbehaved instead. On 18.09.2024, Non- applicant No.1 was speaking ill of him and his family to her sister-in- law over the phone. When he asked her to stop, she refused. He only 5 snatched the phone away but did not assault her. The Non-applicant No.1 allegedly threatened that unless he shifted her to an urban residence separately, she would continue to malign him and his family and also threatened to bring her brothers to assault him and implicate his family in false criminal cases. On 19.09.2024 (10:00 a.m.), while he was eating at home, her mother, brothers, and two others arrived in a four-wheeler. Her mother allegedly threw away his plate, and her brothers assaulted him. Villagers intervened. Thereafter, he lodged a report against them at Police Station Jaithari, and a case was registered against them. He also complained to the Collector and Superintendent of Police about threats from Non-applicant No.1 regarding false cases. He claims that Non-applicant No.1 comes from a well-off family. Her father is employed in the colliery and she has always lived in urban areas, hence unwilling to reside in the village. On 19.09.2024, she left with her brothers and mother, taking away all her jewelry. She does not want to live with him and does not even allow him to speak with their daughter. He asserts that no cruelty or assault was ever committed by him. Thus, the application filed by the non-applicants is based on false allegations. 4. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, and after due consideration, the learned Family Court vide its order dated 22.05.2025 has been partly allowed and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5000/- per month to the Non- applicant No.1 and Rs. 4000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.2. 6 The maintenance is to be paid from the date of the institution of the application. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations made in the application filed by the non-applicants, to the effect that the applicant has subjected non-applicant No.1 to cruelty, are false and baseless. On the contrary, it is non-applicant No.1, along with her brothers, who has been constantly threatening the applicant and this fact was duly reported to the Police, which has not been considered by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the material placed on record by the applicant and in the given circumstances non- applicant No.1 is not entitled to receive maintenance from the applicant. He further contends that non-applicant No.1 has willfully left the matrimonial home and has been continuously harassing the applicant and his family members. Therefore, the grant of maintenance in her favour is wholly unjustified and bad in the eye of law. The application filed by the non-applicant is nothing but a misuse of process of law, intended only to harass the applicant and his family members. It is thus submitted that the order passed by the learned Family Court is unjust and erroneous, and ought to have been rejected by the Family Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 144 of BNSS. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, 7 sought maintenance amount from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Upon appreciation of the facts, evidence and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court come to the conclusion and has partly allowed the application filed by the non- applicants whereas directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 4000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.2 as maintenance from the date of filing of the application (Total 9,000/-per month). While passing the impugned order, the learned Family Court keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity as well as prevailing cost of living, expected expenses granted as maintenance to the non-applicants, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal