1 2025:CGHC:47278 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 514 of 2020 Shri Abhijeet Satish Joshi S/o Shri Satish Nandkishore Aged About 34 Years R/o Bhoyate Nagar, Near Ice Factory Jalgaon Maharastra Pin 431005 O.ce Address Abhijeer Satish Joshi, S/o Shri Satish Nandkishore Joshi, Visawa Lodge Beside Railway Station Jalgaon Maharastra, District : Jalgaon, Maharashtra. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Jyotsna Joshi W/o Abhijeet Joshi Aged About 30 Years D/o Shri Aditya Prasad Sharma, R/o Mahadev Nagar, New Changorabhata, Gali No. 03, P. S. D. D. Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Yoog Josh S/o Abhijeet Joshi Aged About 8 Years Through The Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Jyotsna Joshi, R/o Mahadev Nagar, New Changorabhata, Gali No. 03, P. S. D. D. Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. Heard Ms. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been ;led by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 04.02.2020, passed in MJC no. 91/2018, by the learned First Additional Principal Judge Family Court Raipur C.G., in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent Smt. Jyotsna ;led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, their marriage having been solemnized in the year 2010, and out of the said wedlock, respondent no. 2 was born, who is residing with her. It was alleged that the applicant, who lives in a joint family and earns his livelihood from a Bhojnalaya and shop business, subjected her to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands, due to which she left the matrimonial home in 2011. However, after settlement, she returned, but the ill-treatment continued, and no maintenance was provided to her, causing her health to deteriorate. On 05.06.2017, she ;nally left the matrimonial home and has since been residing separately without any source of income, thereby claiming maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- per month. The applicant, in his written statement, denied the allegations, contending that the respondent is living separately at Paraulal House of her own free will and that he earns merely around Rs. 9,000/- per month by assisting his cousin in business, which is partly ;nanced by a bank loan. He further stated that the matter had earlier been reported to the police and settled, and the present 3 claim is false and liable to be dismissed. After recording evidence, the learned Family Court, by order dated 04.02.2020, allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent no. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and allegations put forth by the applicant, despite su.cient corroboration by witnesses. She further argued that the applicant and his father were falsely implicated in a domestic violence case, as evident from the order dated 04.02.2020 in Case No. 535/17, demonstrating that it was, in fact, the respondent who subjected the applicant to cruelty. The applicant has consistently stated that his income is only Rs. 9,000/- per month, and nothing contrary has been proved on record. Hence, the maintenance amount awarded is excessive, harsh, and beyond his capacity to pay. Furthermore, the respondent is an educated woman with a degree in fashion designing, self-su.cient, and capable of maintaining herself. She has been living separately of her own free will without any su.cient cause, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. The learned family Court also erred in holding that the applicant earns from joint family property, whereas the said property belongs to his father and uncles, and the applicant does not receive any income from it. Thus, the ;nding of the Family Court 4 is erroneous and deserves to be set aside as the enhanced maintenance from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- is unduly harsh and beyond the applicant’s means. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent Smt. Jyotsna ;led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, their marriage having been solemnized in the year 2010, and that out of the said wedlock, respondent no. 2 was born, who is residing with her. It was alleged that the applicant, living in a joint family and engaged in the business of a Bhojnalaya and shop, subjected her to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands, which compelled her to leave the matrimonial home in 2011. After a settlement, she returned, but the harassment and ill-treatment continued, and no maintenance was provided, ultimately forcing her to leave the matrimonial home again on 05.06.2017. Since then, she has been residing separately without any source of income. Upon considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the learned Family Court 5 found that the allegations made by the respondent were duly proved and that the applicant, despite having su.cient means, failed to provide maintenance. It was further held that the applicant’s plea of limited income and false implication was not supported by any credible evidence. Accordingly, by a well-reasoned order dated 04.02.2020, the learned Family Court rightly directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent no. 2, considering their needs and the applicant’s ;nancial capacity. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the ;nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in;rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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