1 2025:CGHC:52462 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1292 of 2025 Kishan Kanhaiya Kashyap S/o Ramsnehi Kashyap Aged About 26 Years R/o Budhena, Police Station And Tahsil Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Manju Kashyap Wife of Kishan Kanhaiya Kashyap Aged About 22 Years R/o Budhena Police Station And Tahsil Navagarh District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2. Rudransh Kashyap Age About 1 and 1/2 Years is Minor, Through-Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Manju Kashyap (Respondent No.1) Mother Son of Kanhaiya Kashyap. R/o Budhena Police Station, And Tahsi Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Verma, Advocate.. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.10.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this present revision petition when the matter is called out for hearing today. 2. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.29 15:14:42 +0530 2 “ It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision by making the order to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 28.04.2025, passed by the Family Court Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 205/2024 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that an application has been 7led by the respondents under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of maintenance. The admitted facts in this case are that the applicant was married to the respondent No. 1 on February 27, 2022, and respondent No. 2 was born out of their marital union. The respondent No. 1 has stated in her application that she was married to the applicant on 27.02.2022, as per Hindu social customs, at Village Mahant, Police Station and Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Subsequently, the respondent No. 1 and the applicant resided at Village Budhena. Respondent no. 2, born from their marriage, resides with his mother, the respondent No. 1. About four months after the marriage, the applicant started harassing the respondent No. 1 for not bringing su=cient dowry and a good motorcycle. The applicant, after consuming alcohol, repeatedly assaulted and abused her and also threatened to marry another woman. On 28.08.2023 at about 11:00 PM, upon receiving information that the applicant had abused and assaulted the respondent No. 1, her father called the police by dialling 112. Considering her safety and future, she returned to her parental home. On 20.04.2024, after attending the wedding of the respondent No. 1’s aunt’s son, she was returning from Village Kutra to Village Mahant on a motorcycle with the applicant. At about 4:30 PM near Mahant Main Road, the applicant, during an argument over dowry, pushed the 3 respondent No. 1 from the moving motorcycle and threatened to kill her by hitting her with a handcuA and a stone, as a result of which she sustained head injuries. The applicant attempted to Bee after abandoning her, but upon persuasion by the villagers, he brought her back and left her outside her maternal home in Village Mahant. The respondent No. 1 was treated by her father at Rana Multispeciality Hospital, Janjgir- Champa, and later at Shankara Hospital, Bilaspur, from 26.04.2024 to 30.04.2024 at his own expense. In the past also, she was treated by her father as the applicant never took her for medical treatment. A report of the aforesaid incident was lodged at Navagarh Police Station on 04.05.2024, and a case is pending against the applicant in the Court of Navagarh under Sections 498A, 323, 325, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has not maintained the respondents since 22.04.2024. The respondents are dependent upon the applicant and have no independent source of income. The applicant is the only son of his parents and is 7nancially well-oA. He earns approximately Rs. 20,000/- per month from driving a Mazda truck, Rs. 30,000/- per month from tractor farming, Rs. 10,000/- per month from vegetable cultivation, and around Rs. 15,00,000/- annually from his father’s 3.358 hectares of double-crop agricultural land situated in Village Budhena. Therefore, the applicant is responsible for the maintenance of his wife and son, i.e., the respondents. Hence, the respondents have prayed for a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the applicant. 5. The applicant 7led his reply and stated that the respondents are residing separately at their own residence. He admitted the marriage and the birth of the child but denied all allegations of dowry demand or cruelty. He further stated that he never consumes alcohol and that respondent No. 1 used to harass him for living in Village Mahant away from his parents. 4 6. On 20.04.2024, the applicant accompanied respondent No. 1 to Village Kutra, and while returning, respondent No. 1 fell from the motorcycle due to a speed breaker and sustained a head injury. The applicant stopped a passing car, took respondent No. 1 to her parental home, and informed her father. Thereafter, the applicant along with his brother-in-law, Ashwani Kashyap, got her treated at the District Hospital, Janjgir, and also got a CT scan done at Rana Multispeciality Hospital. The applicant has also 7led an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. 7. After considering the application, reply, and evidence produced by both parties regarding the applicant’s income, it is found that the applicant drives a tractor and his father owns about 7 acres of agricultural land and a garden. However, the applicant is also responsible for the maintenance of himself and his two unmarried sisters. Therefore, keeping in mind the social and economic status of both parties, it is appropriate that respondent No. 2 be awarded a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) from the applicant. This monthly maintenance shall be payable to respondent No. 2 until he/she attains majority. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is not in accordance with law and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. He submits that the learned Family Court ought not to have relied upon the evidence regarding the alleged means of income of the applicant. In the absence of any documentary evidence relating to the agricultural land or any account books concerning the alleged hotel business, as claimed by the respondent No. 1 in her application and evidence, the learned Family Court ought not to have awarded the amount of maintenance as granted in the impugned order dated 28.04.2025. He also submits that for the 5 aforesaid reasons, the amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court is excessive and unreasonable. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances, and for the sustenance of justice, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court deserves to be set aside and the maintenance order is liable to be cancelled. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent No.2 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek