1 2025:CGHC:56775 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1412 of 2025 Kamlesh Agrawal S/o Dindayal Agrawal Aged About 45 Years (Aadhar No. 6037 5505 3337), Presently R/o Near Aara Machine Ke Pass, Pani Tanki, Village Bankimongra, Post And Thana - Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Mukta Agrawal W/o Kamlesh Agrawal Aged About 34 Years At Present R/o Ganja Chowk, Baniyapara, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.11.2025 1. This criminal revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and set- aside the order dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Misc. Case No. 75/2021, & 0ndings thereof and in e1ect the application RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 0led by the Respondent for grant of maintenance may kindly be rejected, in the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 28.04.2015 as per Hindu customs at village Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba. Thereafter, the respondent/wife 7led an application under Section 125 CrPC alleging that after six months of marriage the behaviour of the applicant and his family members turned cruel, accusing her of not bringing dowry, calling her barren, coercing her to sign blank papers, and later pressurizing her to sign divorce papers. She further alleged that after marriage she was diagnosed with cancer, her brother spent about Rs.7 lakhs on her treatment, and her parents had given gold jewellery as Streedhan. She alleged that on 04.03.2020 she was beaten and driven out of the matrimonial home and since then she has been living in a rented house under care of her brother. She claimed she had no income, incurred heavy expenses on rent and medical treatment, and that the applicant, being a grocery wholesaler earning Rs. 1,50,000 per month, was 7nancially capable of maintaining her; therefore she sought maintenance of Rs. 40,000 per month. The applicant, in his written statement, denied the allegations and stated that the respondent stayed for only three months after marriage, concealed her medical condition, frequently visited her parental house, and was later found su?ering from uterine cancer for which he also contributed to 3 expenses. He further alleged that the respondent’s family demanded Rs. 20 lakhs for mutual settlement and threatened false implication. He submitted that the respondent left the matrimonial home of her own accord and hence was not entitled to maintenance. The Family Court initially granted interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month and thereafter, by 7nal order dated 29.10.2025, allowed the application directing the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 6,000 per month from the date of application. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record while passing the impugned order, inasmuch as the respondent/wife had left the matrimonial home on her own accord without any suCcient or justi7able cause and, therefore, is not entitled to claim maintenance. It is submitted that the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand are wholly unsubstantiated and no complaint alleging such misconduct was ever lodged before any authority, which clearly indicates that the marital relationship between the parties was normal during the period they resided together. It is further urged that no legal evidence has been produced to prove that the applicant or his family members ever tortured, harassed, or demanded dowry from the respondent, and the 7ndings recorded in this regard are contrary to the material on record, particularly in view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deb Narayan Halder vs. Anushree 4 Halder (2003) 11 SCC 303. It is contended that the respondent is residing in her parental house by choice and without suCcient cause, and thus cannot claim maintenance. It is also argued that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive, perverse, and unsustainable as the family Court failed to consider the actual income of the applicant, his personal and business liabilities, and the dependent family members, and further erred in directing payment from the date of the application, thereby imposing an unreasonable 7nancial burden. It is lastly submitted that the learned family Court acted with material irregularity and passed the order mechanically and without proper application of mind. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the pleadings and evidence on record while passing the impugned order dated 29.10.2025. The Family Court, after considering the speci7c allegations of cruelty, dowry demands, coercion, medical condition of the respondent/wife, and the circumstances in which she was allegedly driven out of the matrimonial home on 04.03.2020, found suCcient grounds to hold that the respondent had justi7able reason to reside separately and was entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court also took note of the respondent’s serious medical condition, her lack of independent income, the expenses incurred on rent and treatment, as well as the 7nancial capacity of the applicant, who is stated to be engaged in a pro7table 5 grocery business. The Family Court further evaluated the defence raised by the applicant and found it insuCcient to dislodge the respondent’s claim, particularly noting that the plea of voluntary desertion was not supported by credible evidence. Thus, after due consideration of all material aspects, the learned Family Court rightly directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 6,000 per month from the date of the application, ensuring that the respondent is not left destitute in view of her medical and 7nancial condition. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 7nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in7rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan