1 2025:CGHC:40126 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 30 of 2024 Anant Ram Jery S/o Shri Trilochan Jery Aged About 57 Years Add - Assistant Engineer Pmgsy, Piu-02, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.), (Present Address) ... Applicant versus Smt. Ganadhrvi Jery W/o Shri Anant Ram Jery Aged About 47 Years R/o Shristhi Garden, H.No. 52, Telibandha Thana - Telibandha, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Dubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:- “This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision application and set-aside the order dated 29/09/2023 passed in Criminal Case(MCC) no. 10/18 by the Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur (Chhattisgarh), and reject the respondent claim of maintenance, in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case is that, the respondent (wife) alleged that PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.13 14:07:48 +0530 2 her marriage with the Applicant (husband) was solemnized on 02.04.1993. Out of the wedlock, two children were born—Ms. Akriti (27 years) and Mr. Akash (25 years). The Respondent alleged that the Applicant's elder brother, Rameshwer, would provoke the Applicant over trivial matters, creating tension in their relationship. She also stated that due to limited resources, managing the family’s daily needs was extremely difficult, and no one supported her. Further, the Respondent alleged that the Applicant developed a close relationship with a relative, Smt. Indu Jery, and under her influence, misbehaved with the Respondent. She also claimed that the Applicant, provoked by his parents, verbally abused and assaulted her, leading to a police complaint on 26.10.2015, which she later withdrew. After brief reconciliation, the relationship deteriorated, and since July 2017, the parties have been living separately. She stated that the Applicant is employed as an Assistant Engineer, earning Rs.60,000 per month, and owns 7–8 acres of ancestral land generating Rs.3,00,000 annually. She claimed Rs.20,000 per month as maintenance. 3. The Respondent filed an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and examined herself. During cross-examination, she admitted that cohabitation with the Applicant was no longer possible. She denied seeing any monetary transaction between the Applicant and Smt. Indu and admitted to certain acts affecting the sanctity of the marriage, which was already under strain. Later, the influence of a "Guruji" further eroded the Applicant’s trust. It is pertinent to note that the Applicant had purchased several properties in the 3 Respondent’s name from his earnings: A house at Telibandha, constructed with a loan and personal funds. The Respondent resides in this house (Sale Deed dated 14.12.2006, Possession Letter dated 21.05.2009 – Annexure R/2). Part of this house was let out, and the Respondent collected rent. Two agricultural lands in Village Sonasilly purchased in her name (Khasra Nos. 115/3 and 115/2). Two more agricultural lands in Village Saraipali purchased in 2003 in her name (Khasra Nos. 17/4 and 36/4 ). The original sale deeds remain in the Respondent’s possession. These properties were all acquired from the Applicant’s income. 4. At the initial stage of the proceedings, the Applicant, upon being served notice, met a person named Shri B.K. Manish at the court premises, who falsely claimed to be a lawyer. Trusting him, the Applicant handed over all case-related documents. Later, it was discovered that the individual was not a licensed advocate. The Applicant objected before the court and bar association, but due to this deception, he was prevented from filing these critical documents earlier. An application for admitting these documents as additional evidence has now been filed. Ultimately, by the impugned order, the learned Family Court granted Rs.20,000 per month as maintenance and Rs.3,000 towards litigation expenses in favor of the Respondent. The order was passed based merely on presumptions, without due consideration of the actual facts and evidence on record. The Applicant and his family are under severe financial distress. The maintenance awarded is excessive, unreasonable, and arbitrary, especially in light of the Respondent’s own substantial financial 4 resources and property holdings. Hence, this revision petition is being filed, seeking to set aside the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has completely failed to properly appreciate the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto while determining the maintenance amount. The impugned order is based purely on presumption and guesswork regarding the Applicant’s income, without any reliable evidence on record. Such a finding is arbitrary, unjustified, and legally unsustainable. Considering the property and financial resources held by the Respondent, it is wholly unjust to assume that she requires any maintenance, let alone Rs.20,000 per month. The Respondent has sufficient means to maintain herself. the Applicant had purchased various properties in the name of the Respondent from his own income, from which the Respondent is receiving regular income. She is also residing in the house constructed by the Applicant, a part of which was previously rented out for Rs.8,500 per month. This clearly indicates that the Respondent has adequate independent income and is not in genuine need of financial support from the Applicant. Therefore, the impugned maintenance order is unjustified and arbitrary. V. Because the Applicant is currently taking care of his aged parents, who are entirely dependent upon him financially. Additionally, his son, Akash, is pursuing his M.Tech in Andhra Pradesh and is also solely dependent upon the Applicant. The Applicant himself is suffering from health issues and is living in a rented accommodation at Ambikapur. These facts establish that the Applicant is already 5 burdened with significant financial liabilities, and in such circumstances, the maintenance awarded is highly excessive and unreasonable. The learned Family Court failed to apply its judicial mind and passed the impugned order without conducting a proper and lawful assessment of the evidence and material available on record. The fixation of compensation is, therefore, perverse and deserves to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti