1 2025:CGHC:50355 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1226 of 2025 Vikesh Gupta S/o Shiv Prasad Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o Village, Basdei, Police Chowki Basdei, Police Station Surajpur District- Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Priyanka Gupta D/o Rajkumar Gupta Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kareya, Police Station Darima, Tehsil Ambikapur Surguja District- Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Aarush Gupta S/o Vikesh Gupta Aged About 3 Years Through Guardin Priyanka Gupta D/o Rajkumar Gupta Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kareya, Police Station Darima, Tehsil Ambikapur Surguja District- Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.10.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash/set aside the order dated 11.06.2024 passed in MJC No. 69/2021 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 passed by the learned Family Court, Family Court, Ambikapur District-Surguja (C.G.) in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of Non-applicant No. 1 with the applicant took place on 20.02.2014 in village Kareya, Tehsil Ambikapur, according to Hindu rites. After the marriage, the Non- applicant No.1 stayed at the applicant’s house in village Basdei, District Surajpur for approximately two and a half months, during which time marital relations were maintained. At the time of marriage, the parents of Non-applicant No. 1, as per their capacity and the demand of the applicant, provided ₹1,21,000/- in cash, gold and silver jewelry, utensils, clothes, cooler, sofa, bed, almirah, mixer, and other household items. After returning to the applicant’s house post-marriage, Non-applicant No. 1 was subjected to verbal abuse and physical assault by the applicant and his family over trivial matters. She was also threatened not to inform her parents about the harassment. At that time, the applicant was engaged in selling clothes locally but later asked Non-applicant No. 1 to bring ₹2,00,000/- from her father to open a clothes shop at Basdei Chauraha. When she refused, the applicant and his family mentally and physically harassed her. She informed her married maternal aunt, who, along with her maternal uncle, tried to reason with the applicant and his parents, but they remained adamant. When Non- applicant No. 1 refused to bring the money, the applicant and his parents, and sister Pallavi alias Sangeeta attempted to tie her hands and feet and throw her into a well, but the neighbors 3 intervened upon hearing her cries and her life was saved. She immediately informed her maternal aunt and her parents brought her back to their home in village Kareya, where she stayed. Approximately two and a half months later, during Dussehra, the applicant visited her parents’ house by a Magic vehicle, admitted his mistakes and assured them that he would not harass her again. Based on this assurance, her parents respectfully sent her back with the applicant. After 3–4 days, the applicant’s parents again demanded ₹2,00,000/- for business purposes. The Non-applicant No. 1 refused and as a result, the applicant and his family started physically assaulting her again. During Diwali, she was seriously beaten, after which she informed her parents through her maternal aunt. Her parents reported the matter to the Basdei Police Outpost, and the police called the applicant and his family for counseling, after which they agreed to behave. On the following day, when Non- applicant No. 1 went to the applicant’s house with her father and brother to collect clothes, the applicant and his family chased them to assault them. Her brother Rahul was sent to bring her, but the applicant and his parents assaulted Rahul, forcing her to run to her maternal aunt’s house for safety. When her father Rajkumar learned of the assault, he went to Basdei, where he was verbally abused and insulted. Eventually, Non-applicant No. 1 was brought back to her parental home, where she has been living since then. The applicant had earlier filed a case for divorce, which was dismissed. The applicant along with his parents and sister, continued to harass 4 Non-applicant No. 1 and retained the gold, silver jewelry, and other items given at the time of marriage. Consequently, on 04.03.2015, the Non-applicant No. 1 filed a written complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, leading to the registration of an offence under Section 498 IPC, which is currently pending before the Surajpur Court. She has also filed a case of domestic violence against the applicant and his family, which is also pending. To resolve these matters, the applicant promised to treat Non-applicant No. 1 well, and her parents agreed to send her back, based on this assurance. In 2016, the applicant and his family again took her back to Basdei, causing the domestic violence case to be closed due to non-pursuance and the applicant and his family were freed of criminal liability on the basis of settlement. After the closure of these cases, the applicant and his family again began verbally abusing and physically assaulting Non-applicant No. 1, demanding ₹2,00,000/-. In March 2019, when she refused, they attempted to kill her by pushing her into a well, but the villagers intervened and saved her life. Consequently, Non-applicant No. 1 has been residing at her parental home since then, fearing for her safety. The Non- applicant No. 2, child born out of the marital relationship of Non- applicant No. 1 and the applicant, is currently 3 years old and living with his mother in village Kareya. The applicant has neither attempted to take custody of the child nor made any arrangements for maintenance. It is further alleged that he earns approximately ₹50,000–60,000/- per month from his business of selling clothes, ₹2,00,000/- annually from agricultural land, and ₹1,00,000 per 5 month from renting vehicles such as tractor, auto, pickup, and Bolero. Therefore, he is fully capable of maintaining Non-applicant No. 1 and the child. It is therefore prayed that the applicant be directed to pay maintenance of ₹5,000/- per month each to meet their basic needs. 3. The written statement was filed by the husband/applicant and it was stated that, the applicant has never ill-treated the non-applicant No.1. Moreover, it was categorically pleaded that the non- applicant No.1 was having the habit of going to her paternal house and when applicant tried to bring her, she always refused to come back. So much so, it was also pleaded that, the applicant has never deserted her but the non-applicant/wife herself chosen to live separately. It was also pleaded that, for the reason of living separately and by the social custom the marriage between the applicant and non- applicant has been terminated. For the said reason it was prayed that, the application of the non-applicants are devoid of merits and deserved to be dismissed. 4. After considering the evidence and material available on record and hearing the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC in favour of the Non- applicants. The Family Court directed the applicant/husband to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to Non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- to Non-applicant No.2 (minor son), totaling Rs. 5,000/- per month towards maintenance. In addition, the Court also directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2,000/- as expenses of the proceedings. Hence, this revision. 6 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the Family Court is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside in light of the evidence on record. It is submitted that the conduct of the Non-applicant No. 1 has been inhuman from the beginning, which led to the failure of the marriage. The applicant, who was previously engaged in the business of selling clothes as a hawker, is now financially distressed due to the harassment by the Non- applicant No.1. The parties have been divorced since 27.09.2022, and the applicant is no longer financially responsible for the non- applicants, as they are living with their respective families, who are well-to-do. The applicant has other dependents to support and is financially burdened. It is further submitted that, having obtained a decree for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of desertion by the Non-applicant No.1, an order for maintenance could not have been passed in her favour under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, which bars maintenance where the wife refuses to live with the husband without sufÏcient reason. Once the decree of divorce was passed and marital relations between the applicant and the Non-applicant No.1 came to an end, all mutual rights, duties, and obligations also ceased, and the applicant cannot be obliged to maintain a woman with whom all relations have legally ended. Accordingly, the Non-applicants are not entitled to maintenance either for the period prior to or after the passing of the divorce decree. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicants have succeeded in proving their application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted Rs.5000/- per month 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 parties, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to the non-applicants, 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certificate copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal