1 2025:CGHC:41507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1318 of 2024 Ganesh Raghav S/o Rammurty Raghav Aged About 35 Years R/o Kumharras Para Sukma, District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Jyoti Raghav W/o Ganesh Raghav Aged About 22 Years R/o Kumharras Para Sukma, District- Sukma (C.G.), Present Address- Danteshwari Ward Sethiya Gali Ward No.20, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate.. For Respondent : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to modified/set- aside the vide order dated 09.10 2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Balod (C.G.) passed in M.J.C RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 No. 25/2022, wherein it was held by the court that both respondents was entitled for interim maintenance of Rs. 10,500/- per month under the provisions of section 125 of Cr.P.C from the date of the application for maintenance i.e. 04.03.2022 till determination of application under section 125 of Cr.P.C.; and the instant Criminal Revision for waiving off the Maintenance amount tune of Rs 10,500/- per month be allowed. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the applicant. The marriage between the applicant and the respondent took place on 24.12.2020 in Gram Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) according to social customs. As per the respondent/wife’s application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the applicant married the respondent, and about 15 days after the marriage, the applicant, under the influence of alcohol, started quarrelling with the respondent, alleging that she had brought insufficient dowry. In January 2021, the applicant, along with his sister (Dhanalakshmi) and his parents, allegedly started harassing the respondent by abusing her and repeating that she had brought less dowry. It is further alleged that the applicant beat her while demanding a motorcycle in dowry. Only after one month of marriage, the applicant sent the respondent to her parental house in Danteshwari Ward, Jagdalpur, instructing her to bring back the remaining dowry items and the motorcycle. The respondent claims she continued to tolerate the cruelty of her husband, believing that the 3 dispute between husband and wife would eventually be resolved. However, there was no change in the behaviour of the applicant, who allegedly abused and beat her on trivial matters. In March 2021, the applicant, along with his parents and sister, allegedly beat the respondent and threw her out of the house, saying she had not brought sufficient dowry. Consequently, the respondent returned to her parental house in Danteshwari Ward, Jagdalpur. 4. The respondent further claims that the applicant works as a lab technician in District Hospital, Sukma (C.G.), earning approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month. She contends that the applicant is liable to pay maintenance and meet her living expenses. Owing to the applicant’s cruelty, she is leading a helpless and painful life in her maternal home. Ultimately, the respondent prayed for a maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the applicant. However, the actual facts of this case, as submitted by the applicant, are that he does not consume alcohol at all. The applicant and his family are financially well-off, while the respondent belongs to a lower-income family. Despite this, the applicant’s family solemnized the marriage with the respondent considering her good conduct and behaviour, without any expectation of dowry. The applicant already owns a motorcycle and a car, hence he had no need to demand another motorcycle. The respondent has levelled false allegations against the applicant and his family. The applicant did not send the respondent to her parental home in Jagdalpur; rather, she herself went there by bus after an argument with the applicant and his family. Thereafter, even after repeated calls and attempts by the applicant to bring her back, she refused to return. By making false allegations, the respondent intends to continue living in Jagdalpur for her personal interest, thereby causing mental harassment to the applicant. If 4 the allegations of dowry harassment were true, the respondent would have lodged a complaint at the police station, which she did not. On several occasions, she voluntarily went to her maternal home at Jagdalpur after quarrels and returned on her own. It is further submitted that during her stay in Sukma, the respondent became pregnant but unfortunately suffered an abortion due to side effects of medication taken during a bout of malaria and high fever. The respondent desires a free and independent lifestyle and has willfully neglected her matrimonial responsibilities. The respondent left her matrimonial house in the year 2021 due to a trivial conflict between the parties. 5. Learned Family Court, after examining the witnesses, recording the evidence, and framing the issues, allowed the maintenance application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,500/- to the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 09.10.2024, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 25/2022, holding that the respondent is entitled to Rs. 10,500/- per month, is bad in law and has been passed without proper appreciation of the record and evidence on record. She submits that learned Family Court has miserably failed to appreciate the facts and evidence relating to the present case, as well as the law and judicial precedents applicable thereto, and consequently has passed the impugned order. All the circumstances leading to the dispute have been created by the respondent herself, and the entire family of the applicant has been unnecessarily harassed and troubled. Being a woman, the respondent is misusing the law, and for her personal benefit and desire to live a free life, she is harassing the applicant by making false allegations without residing with him. As a result, the applicant’s 5 married life has been completely shattered, and both the applicant and his family have suffered mental agony. She further submits that the applicant is willing to keep the respondent with him and has made sincere efforts to bring her back, including attempts made through the National Lok Adalat, but the same have not been successful due to the respondent’s unwillingness. Therefore, the respondent has no right to claim any maintenance amount from the applicant. She also submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate the genuine efforts made by the applicant to convince the non-applicant to live with him, as well as his attempts to amicably resolve the disputes. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan