1 2025:CGHC:40145 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1096 of 2023 Anuroop Mukherjee S/o Shri Suneet Mukehrjee Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. A-12, Shivam Vihar, Near Saint Joseph School, Amlidih, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Shweta Mukherjee W/o Anuroop Mukherjee Aged About 33 Years D/o Asit Kumar Ghuroi, R/o House No. I-9, Agroha Society, Sector-1, Raipura, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Anusha Mukherjee Aged About 3 Years, Through Guardian Smt. Shweta Mukherjee, R/o House No. I-9, Agroha Society, Sector-1, Raipura, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Navin Shukla, learned counsel for the Non-applicants. 2. I.A. No.2 of 2023 is an application for condonation of delay in filing KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 the revision of 11 days. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned. 4. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: 1 “It is thus prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be kind enough to call for the entire record of the case No. Criminal MCC No. 148/2022 from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) 2 It is thus prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be kind enough to quash and set-aside the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) dated 21.06.2023 to the extent that the maintenance has been granted from the date of application without there being any reason for the same 3 It is thus prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be kind enough to quash and set aside the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) dated 21.06.2023 to the extent that maintenance has been awarded to the respondent No.1. 4. It is thus prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be kind enough to any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems 2t in the larger interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 5. Brief facts of the case are that the Non-applicant No. 1 married with the applicant on 26.11.2015 in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Her mother, 3 brother, and sister died in a 2012 car accident. Before marriage, both families agreed she would occasionally visit her father to care for him and the applicant had no objection. At marriage, her father gave gold, silver, and furniture as dowry. On the wedding day, her mother-in-law demanded ₹10 lakh in cash; her father arranged ₹3 lakh, and the marriage proceeded. Later, in-laws demanded ₹7 lakh more and ₹30 lakh for buying a house, which she refused as her father was retired. In April 2016, she became pregnant, but the applicant pressured her for an abortion and took her to Dr. Farishta for termination. After that, he stopped physical relations with her. In September 2016, the applicant demanded money for a car; her father gave ₹20,000/- which he used to buy a Nano car. He kept asking her father to pay installments. In November 2016, she su>ered typhoid and kidney stones, her father bore the treatment costs as the applicant did nothing. In June 2018, she became pregnant again, the applicant and his mother pressured for abortion. When she refused, they left her at her father’s house on 30.07.2018. She gave birth to a daughter, Anusha Mukherjee, on 02.02.2019. Since then, in-laws neither visited nor supported her, kept demanding dowry and threatened divorce. She has been living separately since 30.07.2018. She claims the applicant earns ₹40,000/- per month from “Aaj Tak” and ₹40–50,000/- per month from a medicine business therefore, she seeks ₹40,000/- per month maintenance for herself and ₹20,000/- per month for her daughter by Dling an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court. 6. The notice was issued to the applicant and a detailed reply was Dled before the learned Family Court with necessary documents in support 4 of the said reply and reply to the application for interim maintenance. It was categorically submitted in the reply that the Non-applicant No. 1 was working on contractual basis on the post of news editor, but lost his job during COVID-19 Pandemic. It was further stated that the business of medicines was run by his father and that too got a>ected during COVID due ill health of father and subsequently he passed away on 10.04.2021. It was also stated that the Non-applicant No. 1 used to quarrel and create nuisance in the house for petty things and that an amount of Rs 2.50 lakhs was given by the applicants' mother to non-applicant No. 1's father to help him in his business since admittedly he had no income earlier as stated by the Non-applicant No. 1 also. He further submits that the decision of abortion was independently taken by the non-applicant No. 1 and she was not forced to do so. Apparently, was given by her for the said procedure which would form a part of medical documents. She was in possession of her stridhana and took the same while leaving her matrimonial house. Further, the car was bought by the applicant and loan installments for the same were concluded on 17.06.2020. It was further stated that the applicant as well as his family were very happy and excited on hearing the news of Non-applicant No. 1's pregnancy since it would have been the Drst child in his family. But, the non- applicant No. 1 without any suIcient reason left her matrimonial house and started to live with her father. It would be pertinent to mention here that the applicant used to take the Non-applicant No. 1 for regular check ups to the doctor during her pregnancy and he was present at the time of birth of her daughter. It is the Non-applicant No. 1 who doesn't let the applicant meet her only daughter i.e. Non-applicant No. 5 2. She doesn't let the applicant give her gifts on her birthday also. Lots of e>orts were made by the applicant to reconcile the relation, but the she refused for the same. In fact she did not even come to attend the funeral of her father in law. She had an a>air with one guy named Mukesh Sahu and she had admitted about the relation to the applicant and sought for a fresh start. 7. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, heard both the parties, the learned Family Court concerned passed the order dated 21.06.2023, whereby partly allowed the application Dled by the Non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 8000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 3000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.2 until her marriage towards maintenance and further ordered to bear Rs. 3000/- for expenses of the proceedings. Hence, this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the reason that the Non-applicant No.1/wife is living separately from the applicant/husband without any justiDable and suIcient reason. The Family Court has erred in not considering the fact that the Non- applicant No. 1 is capable of earning and was doing so prior to her marriage and Dling of the application also. The Non-applicant No. 1 failed to establish that legal requirements of section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is being fulDlled in this case. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is ready to keep the non-applicants being his wife and daughter, but the she has willfully left her matrimonial house. The Non- applicant No. 1 is willfully depriving the applicant from company of her daughter whereas he is ready to take the responsibility of her wife and 6 daughter. The Non-applicant No. 1 is qualiDed to earn her livelihood, but the application for maintenance has been moved only to harass the applicant while depriving him of marital companionship as well his fatherhood. The learned Family Court has erred to not consider that the applicant lost his contractual job during COVID. He further submits that only to harass the applicant, application for maintenance has been preferred by the Non-applicants and the aIdavit Dled by the Non- applicant No. 1, false statements have been made whereby all the past and present employments of Non-applicant No. 1 have not been disclosed, thus misleading the Family Court’s order of interim maintenance has been received. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the Non-applicant No.1 wife is living separately from her applicant husband without any reason and hence has willfully deserted him. Accordingly, impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 11. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application Dled under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, sought maintenance amount from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Upon appreciation of the facts, evidence and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application Dled by the non-applicants wherein directed the 7 applicant/husband to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 3000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.2 until her marriage as maintenance (Total 11,000/-per month) . While passing the said order, the learned Family Court keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity as well as prevailing cost of living, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted as maintenance to the non-applicants, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revision and Dnding recorded by learned Family Court, 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. 13. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal