1 2025:CGHC:47281 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 156 of 2016 1 - Smt. Reshma Karamchandani W/o Shri Rakesh Karamchandani Aged About 29 Years R/o Through Ajay Kumar Bajaj, Dr. M.C. Varma, Tower Street Jarahabhata, Sindhi Colony, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Jarahabhata, Ward No. 12, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Samrat Karamchandani S/o Shri Rakesh Karamchandani Aged About 1 Years 6 Months, Through Mother And Natural Guardian Smt Reshma Karamchandani, R/o Through Ajay Kumar Bajaj, Dr. M.C. Varma, Tower Street Jarahabhara, Sindhi Colony, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Jarahabhata, Ward No. 12, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants(s) versus Rakesh Karamchandani S/o Shri Chandlal Karamchandani Aged About 33 Years R/o Shaktidham T-34/3, Old Chungi Naka, Main Road Bairagarh, Police Station Bairagarh, Tahsil And District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Preset Work Place Llnden Shipping International, Sarjah Hamariya Free Zone, Plot No. H C-07, P.O. Box No. 49252, Sarjah U A E, Contact Number 97165260003, Fax No. 97165261930., Madhya Pradesh ... Non-applicant(s) KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 For Applicants : Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocate For Non-applicant : None present Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the applicants. None appeared nor any representation made on behalf of Non- applicant. 2. As per the oAce report dated 14.07.2025, notice has been duly served upon the Non-applicant/husband through the email address provided by the learned counsel for the applicant, in compliance with this Court’s order dated 17.06.2025. However, when the matter was taken up, neither the Non-applicant appeared in person or through virtual mode, nor was any counsel present on his behalf to contest the petition. 3. Considering that the matter pertains to the year 2016 and is pending for a considerable period of time, this Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter Cnally. 4. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court will be pleased to call for records of the Court below and after perusal allow the maintenance amount of Rs. 50,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1.” 5. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant No.1 and the Non-applicant was performed as per Hindu rites and 3 rituals of Saptpadi on 18.11.2013 at Bairagarh Bhopal. At the time of marriage the parents of the applicant No.1 had given the articles as per the demand of the Non-applicant and his parents. From the matrimonial relation between the applicant No.1 and the non- applicant, the applicant No.2 was born on 06.10.2014 at Bilaspur. After the marriage, applicant No.1 went to Bhopal for performing her matrimonial obligations. In her matrimonial house, non-applicant as well as his relations used to torture her on the ground that insuAcient dowry has been brought by her and all of them started saying that the applicant No.1 should bring 20 lakhs from her parents. On 30.11.2013, the Non-applicant took the applciant No.1 to Dubai (UAE) from Bhopal. During her stay in UAE the Non- applicant used to beat and torture her for Rs. 20 lakhs and also stated that if she is not in a position to bring Rs. 20 lakhs she should get a job for herself. Because of ill-treatment of the Non-applicant, applicant No.1 had become inCrm and when she was taken to the hospital, it came to the knowledge of the Non-applicant that the applicant No.1 has conceived. On this the Non-applicant started saying that she is a burden on him shoulders and she is burdening him with the armother. The Non-applicant started pressurizing the applicant No.1 to get aborted and when she refused the same the Non-applicant gave her a very cruel beating, because of which she become unconscious. Thereafter Non-applicant sent the alone applicant No.1 to Bilaspur through a Gight of Nagpur at her parental house to get aborted. After coming of the applicant No.1 at Bilaspur, the Non-applicant again said her to get aborted and when the 4 applicant No.1 denied, Non-applicant again placed his demand of Rs. 20 lakhs and stopped talking her on cell phone. In the seven month of pregnancy of applicant No.1, her father talked Non-applicant on his cell-phone for performing the custom of Baby Shower “गोद भराई” to be performed at Bhopal, on this Non-applicant stated that he will attend the custom only on the condition if he will be given Rs. 20 lakhs. On the promise made by the father of the applicant No.1, Non-applicant came to Bhopal and when the father of the applicant No.1 could not satisfy the demand of Non-applicant, the custom of Baby Shower “ ” गोद भराई was not performed and Non-applicant left applicant No.1 at Bilaspur stating that she will be allowed to stay with him only on satisfying the demand of Rs. 20 lakhs. When the applicant No.1 gave birth to applicant No.2, it was informed to the Non-applicant and also her in- laws but no one turned to Bilaspur from the side of the Non- applicant and they were persistent in their demand of money. The applicant No.1 never raised her voice against the ill- treatment of the Non-applicant and his family members on the faith that with the change of time and birth of the applicant No.2 good sense will prevail over the Non-applicant and her in-laws and she will lead a happy married life. Even after the birth of applicant No.2, Non-applicant did not come to Bilaspur to take back the applicants, then the applicant No.1 had no other way left instead to Cle a case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the Family Court Bilaspur. 5 6. The Non-applicant appeared before the Family Court Bilaspur and submitted his reply to the application Cled by the applicants making false allegations against the applicant No.1. 7. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 15.01.2016, whereby the non-applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month to the applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 13,000/- per month to the applicant No.2/son as amount of maintenance (total 25,000/-) from the date of passing of the order. Hence this revision petition. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that the impugned order is erroneous and against the weight of evidence on record. The Family Court failed to consider that the Non-applicant, being an NRI, is maintaining a high standard of living and the maintenance should have been Cxed from the date of Cling of the application. The non-applicant has not produced any employment contract, salary slips, rent deed or partnership deed, yet the Court accepted his plea of earning only Rs.90,000/- per month and paying Rs.40,000/- as rent, which is neither believable nor supported by evidence. On the contrary, the bio-data posted by the Non-applicant shows his annual income as Rs.15 lakhs, the C.D. produced in evidence records the admission of his brother that he is earning Rs.1,35,000/- per month, and even the HR Manager of Linden Shipping International conCrmed that his salary is around Rs.3,20,000/- per month. The photographs Cled by the non-applicant are edited and not genuine, while the alleged rituals after marriage have not been proved by any 6 photographs. Further, the plea that he transferred money to the applicant is false, as the remittances were sent to her sister Priya at Bangalore and not to the applicant No.1 herself. The Family Court also erred in holding that applicant No.1 has suAcient means merely because she was ready to bear the cost of C.D. examination and DNA test, without any proof of her independent income. The salary slip relied upon by the Non-applicant is of 2012 and has not been proved by any witness, and it is against ordinary course of service in multinational companies to presume that salary remained stagnant for years. Hence, the Cnding of the Family Court awarding only Rs.12,000/- per month is arbitrary, perverse, and unsustainable, and deserves to be set aside with a direction to award just and reasonable maintenance to the wife and son keeping in view the Non-applicant’s true income and living standard. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 10.From perusal of the impugned judgment of the Family Court, I Cnd that the Family Court has meticulously appreciated the pleadings, evidence, and cross-examination of both parties before arriving at its conclusions. The Family Court rightly noted the contradictions in the applicant’s version regarding the Non-applicant’s income, the absence of reliable documentary proof from her side, and the cogent evidence furnished by the non-applicant demonstrating that his monthly income is only 5,000/- Dirhams (approximately Rs. 90,000/-), out of which substantial amounts are expended towards rent, parental support, and personal subsistence in Dubai. The 7 Court further took into consideration the applicant-wife’s educational qualiCcations and her own conduct, which reGects that she possesses Cnancial capability, and accordingly granted Rs. 12,000/- per month towards maintenance to her as just and suAcient. In respect of the minor son, the Family Court, bearing in mind the Non-applicant’s status as an NRI, awarded Rs. 13,000/- per month to him, which is both reasonable and in consonance with the Cnancial constraints of the Non-applicant. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, perusing the documents appended with revision and Cnding 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. 12. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal