1 2025:CGHC:27752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1378 of 2018 Arun Pratap Singh Bhadouriya S/o Tej Pratap Singh Bhadouriya Aged About 32 Years R/o - L.D.A. Colony, S.S./11 D.1, 1490 , Kanpur Road, Lucknow, District - Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh., District : Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Durga Singh Bhadouriya W/o Arun Pratap Singh Bhadouriya Aged About 29 Years R/o - Jalgrih Marg, Ravanbhatha, Infront Of Suman Photo Studio, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aditi Tripathi holding the brief of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Aditi Tripathi holding the brief of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.531/2016, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent got married on 12.12.2014. After the marriage, the respondent went to her in-laws' house in Lucknow. However, after a few days, the applicant and his family members' behavior changed, and they started harassing the respondent over bringing insufficient dowry, demanding Rs.17 lakhs in cash from her parents' house, despite the fact that sufficient goods were given, and later demanding Rs.35 lakhs along with a vehicle. The respondent has also averred that on 17.01.2015, she went to Raipur to appear for her B.Ed exam. During this time, the applicant started demanding Rs.35 lakhs worth of land and Rs.15 lakhs in cash over the phone. The respondent’s father gave Rs.10 lakhs in cash to the applicant on October 24, 2015. The applicant then took the respondent to Lucknow but started abusing and beating her again over dowry demands after 2-3 days. When applicant became pregnant, and the applicant continued to physically abuse her by choking her, withholding food for 2-3 days, and locking her in a room for several days. 3 4. The respondent further avers that the applicant subjected her to constant harassment and threats, 24 hours a day. In July 2015, when the respondent’s father came to Lucknow to take her back home, the applicant did not even allow her to talk to her father. The applicant forced himself upon the respondent and had physical relations with her against her will. The respondent’s father booked flight tickets for a trip as per the applicant’s instructions, but even then, he abused her. At Nainital, at 9 pm, the applicant snatched her money and abandoned her, switching off his phone. Later, he brought her back to Raipur and left her there, after which she filed a report with the police. The respondent avers that she is living under the care of her parents and has no source of income. On the other hand, the applicant is employed as a Project Manager with Godrej Company in Mumbai, earning a monthly salary of Rs.70,000/-. The applicant has prayed for a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.25,000/- in the application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court. After considering fact and circumstances of the case, the Family Court partly allowed the maintenance application filed by the respondent. Hence, the criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court failed to consider the fact that the respondent is living separately without any valid reason despite his efforts to reconcile. He alleges that the respondent made false accusations of cruelty and harassment against him and his family members, whereas in 4 reality, she was the one who subjected them to such treatment. The applicant argues that the respondent's behavior has caused significant problems for him and his family, and the Family Court overlooked this crucial aspect of the case, in spite of all that applicant made sufficient efforts to bring the respondent back to his house, but she has refused to join him. In fact, the applicant had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, but the respondent did not want to return to his house. During counseling on 16.03.2016, the respondent refused to go with the applicant despite his willingness to keep her, she refused to compromise and instead filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. This conduct suggests that the respondent wants to live separately, but her inability to adjust with the applicant and his middle-class family background led to the breakdown of the marriage. He also submits that the respondent is financially supported by her father and is also capable of earning herself, thereby making her self- sufficient. The Family Court's award of Rs.6,000/- as maintenance is contested on the grounds that the respondent is capable of maintaining herself through her own earnings and her father's support, hence, the order impugned is liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the 5 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the pay Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing the statement of respondent, wherein she has stated that she has no source of income and does not work. However, she admitted in her cross- examination that she is educated up to B.Ed. This fact is significant. The applicant did not state that his wife is earning or that he is maintaining her. It is clear from the respondent’s evidence that the applicant is not providing maintenance. As per applicant’s income, he stated in his evidence that he works at Sahni Transport in Lucknow and earns a monthly salary of Rs.9,800. He submitted a pay slip issued by the transport company. Although he denied earning Rs.1 lakh, he disclosed his source of income and the income earned from it. The respondent stated that at the time of marriage, it was told that the applicant worked as a Project Manager at Godrej Company in Mumbai and earned a salary of Rs.70,000. However, she cannot confirm his current occupation. The applicant admitted to being educated up to B.Tech, which indicates his capacity to earn. He is currently 6 working at a transport company with a monthly salary of Rs.9,800. He further observed that both parties are well-educated, but it is clear that the respondent is not currently earning. The applicant / husband has disclosed his monthly income. Considering the parties' education qualification, the applicant’s obligations towards the respondent, the current inflation rate, and the standard of living of the parties, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondent as aforementioned. 9. Considering the submissions 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. 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 Akhil 7