1 2025:CGHC:48747 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1178 of 2025 1 - Dalima Lilhare W/o Yogendra Lilhare Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Pauldona, Tah. - Salhekasa, District- Godia (Maharashtra) Present Address - Bhulatola, Police Station - Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 2 - Minor Tasvi Lilhare D/o Yogendra Lilhare, Aged About 01 Years 06 Months, Minor Tasvi Through Legal Guardian Mother W/o Yogendra Lilhare, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village - Pauldona, Tah. - Salhekasa, District- Godia (Maharashtra) Present Address - Bhulatola, Police Station - Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Yogendra Lilhare S/o Lekhram Lilhare Aged About 36 Years Occupation- Private Physician, R/o Pauldona, Tah. - Salhekasa, District- Godia (Maharashtra) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.09.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the learned Judge Chain Court Khairagarh of Family Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) may kindly be modified/enhanced, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that it is an admitted fact in the present case that applicant No.1 was married to the Non-applicant on 11.05.2018 as per Hindu rites and customs. From their wedlock, on 27.04.2021, applicant No.2, a daughter named Tasvi, was born. The application, in brief, states that applicant No.1 was married to the Non-applicant on 11.05.2018 according to Hindu rites and customs, and from their marital relationship, applicant No.2, daughter Tasvi, was born on 27.04.2021. After marriage, applicant No.1 came to know that the Non-applicant was having an affair with another girl. When she inquired about it, he assaulted her, broke her mobile phone, and continued maintaining illicit relations with other girls without discharging his marital obligations. During this period, while residing in Gondia, applicant No.1 asked him to go to the village. He reluctantly went to village Kothitola, where he developed relations with a widow woman and also assaulted applicant No.1, breaking her phone. When the applicant No.1 became pregnant and during that period, she came to know that the Non-applicant had illicit relations with two of her female relatives, who used to accompany him. During pregnancy, she went to her parental home and stayed there for two months. In the third month, the Non-applicant brought 3 her back to the village. She began suffering from pain in her legs, due to which she was unable to work. During the pregnancy, he used to beat her and even threatened, saying he would kick her so that the child would be aborted. In the 8th month of her pregnancy, he left her at her parental home for delivery. On 27.04.2021, applicant No.2 was born. He came with difficulty to see the child, but quarreled and took the applicants along with him. After taking them to the village, he did not treat them properly and continued to assault her. The applicant No.1 informed her parents, who then brought her back. Later, applicant No.1 requested the Non- applicant to take her back. In the meantime, as he started living and working in Chhuria, applicant No.1, along with the child, went to Chhuria and stayed there for about one and a half months. The Non-applicant did not mend his conduct. Even in Chhuria, he used to bring girls home and indulge in indecent acts. When applicant No.1 objected, he assaulted her and asked her to stay at her parental home and that he would send ₹3,000/- per month. The applicant No.1 narrated the incidents to her parents, who tried to counsel the Non-applicant, but he remained adamant. As a result, applicant No.1 returned to her parental home with the child. Thereafter, the Non-applicant kept two girls in his house, due to which applicant No.1 filed a complaint at the Women’s Cell, Rajnandgaon. However, he did not give his statement there, and the matter was forwarded to the Women’s Cell, Chuikhadan for action. Consequently, Crime No.215/2022 was registered against him under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC, and he was arrested. It is 4 further alleged that the Non-applicant is a capable person earning ₹30,000/- per month. He owns 10 acres of agricultural land in his native village, from which he earns an annual income of ₹3,00,000/-. The applicant No.1 is an educated woman but presently resides in her father’s house in the village, having no means of employment. Therefore, she requires maintenance of ₹5,000/- per month for herself and ₹5,000/- per month for her daughter, totaling ₹10,000/- per month. 3. In his written reply, the Non-applicant has stated that a few days after marriage, applicant No.1 began suspecting that he had illicit relations with other women. On this ground, she frequently quarreled with him and repeatedly went to her parental home. The delivery of applicant No.1 took place at her parental home on 27.04.2021. When he went to see her, her mother and brother misbehaved with him, creating a quarrelsome situation. However, later he persuaded the applicants and brought them back to his house. The applicant No.1 stayed for some time, but when she began suffering from leg pain, her parents said they would not keep her, and thus he brought her along. At that time, the Non-applicant was residing in Chhuria. The applicant No.1 stayed with him there for some days. During that period, the Non-applicant’s maternal grandfather passed away, and while he intended to take applicant No.1 back to the village, due to it getting late in the evening, they postponed the journey. Meanwhile, applicant No.1’s father and brother came to Chhuria and took her away. When asked, her father said that they would not let their daughter stay with him. The 5 applicant No.1 then filed a complaint at the Women’s Cell, Rajnandgaon, where the Non-applicant also appeared. She again filed a complaint at the Women’s Cell, Chuikhadan, on the basis of which an offence under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC was registered against him. The Non-applicant further submitted that he earns only ₹5,000/- per month by doing daily wage labour. He has no agricultural land in his name, only 1.5 acres of land is in his father’s name and he also has a younger brother. On the other hand, applicant No.1 works as a nurse at Sai Hospital, Khairagarh, and earns a decent income. Her parents are financially well-off—her father is a doctor, her mother is also employed, and her brother works at the Arrow Water Factory. They own a two-storey house, and in her father’s name, there are 8 acres of agricultural land, which yields good income. Thus, the applicant No.1 is a financially capable woman. Therefore, the present application deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 08.07.2025, whereby the non-applicant/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month towards maintenance to the applicant No. 2/daughter from the date of filing of application. However, with respect to applicant No.1/wife, her application was dismissed on the ground that she is an educated woman and is employed as a nurse, and therefore, is capable of maintaining herself. Consequently, she was held not entitled to any maintenance. Hence, this revision. 6 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 31.08.2015, passed by the learned Link Judge, Family Court, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), is bad in law, illegal, perverse, and contrary to the evidence available on record, and therefore deserves to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the applicants’ case in its proper perspective and erred in recording findings on facts. The determination of maintenance has been made on wrong presumptions and on irrelevant considerations, rendering the order unsustainable. It is further submitted that the non-applicant is employed as a Private Physician, earning about Rs. 30,000/- per month, apart from having agricultural land and other sources of income. Despite this, the Family Court erroneously rejected the claim of applicant No.1/wife and awarded only Rs. 1,500/- per month to applicant No.2/minor child, which is grossly inadequate considering present-day expenses and the financial capacity of the non-applicant. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 31.08.2015 be set aside, and the maintenance allowance be suitably enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of the applicants, in the interest of justice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month has been awarded as maintenance to applicant No.2/daughter from the date of filing of the application. However, the claim of applicant 7 No.1/wife was rejected on the ground that she is an educated woman and employed as a nurse and therefore capable of maintaining herself. The Family Court further observed that the wife failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding the income of the husband and in his affidavit, the husband himself stated that he is working as a labourer. Consequently, she was held not entitled to any maintenance from him. It appears that the learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting maintenance solely to the minor child, considering his status as a dependent and the legal obligation of the father to maintain him. The absence of any finding or relief regarding non-applicant No.1 indicates that the Court did not find sufficient grounds to allow her claim for maintenance, which, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be erroneous or unjustified. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 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 learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal