1 2025:CGHC:40150 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1001 of 2023 Yadvendra Tiwari S/o Late Bhagat Ram Tiwari, Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Bhalugodar, Police Station And Post Bijuri, Tahsil Kotma, District Anuppur (M.P.) (Non-Applicant) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sunita Tiwari W/o Shri Yadvendra Tiwari, Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Bhalugodar, Police Station And Post Bijuri, Tahsil Kotma, District Anuppur (M.P.) Present R/o Near G.M. Office, Eta Dafai South Jhagrakhand Ledri Tahsil Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh (Appicant) Police Station Jhagrakhand. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Jyoti Kaushik, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Jyoti Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed this criminal revision and the impugned order passed by KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District Koriya (Now at present M.C.B) (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 122/2022 (Smt. Sunita Tiwari Vs. Yadvendra Tiwari) may kindly be quashed and further may kindly be pleased to discharge the applicant from maintenance amount which is awarded against him in the interest of justice. This Hon'ble court be further pleased to pass any other order or relief in favour of the present applicant as it deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of Justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant has filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. along with interim application for granting the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month for maintaining herself. The non-applicant has contended in her application that after the marriage, the applicant was keeping her well and enjoying the married life, thereafter, the applicant was harassed/ill-treated by way of marpit with non-applicant on account of dowry. She has made the other allegation against the applicant regarding cruelty like that the applicant always abused her and harassed her by mentally & physically. Further she alleged in her application that the applicant and his family members always made cruelty against her and she opposed, then the applicant committed marpit due to which she come her matrimonial house and, thereafter, the applicant has not come for taking away to his house and now till date she is residing at her parents house. She further 3 alleged that the applicant was always made cruelty with the non- applicant due to which there is no possible to live with the applicant and she have come to her parents house and lodged the criminal report against applicant and his mother in the Police Station Bijuri, District Anuppur (M.P.). Further, she contended in her application that she is not having source of income and she is completely depended upon her parents whereas the applicant is engaged in the work of labour in the Bijuri Colliery and his income of Rs. 35,000/- to 40,000/-. Therefore, the she stated in her application that the applicant has not maintained her after living separately by her, therefore, she filed an application for grant of maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month before the learned Family Court from the applicant. 4. In response, the applicant has denied all facts except the admitted facts mentioned in paragraph 02. He states that neither he nor his family members ever demanded dowry from the non-applicant or harassed her. According to him, from the very beginning after marriage, the non-applicant pressured him to live separately from his family and when he tried to explain, she refused to agree, remained adamant, and eventually left the matrimonial home with all her belongings. Despite several efforts, she did not return. He describes the non-applicant as a woman of independent nature. The applicant filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Kotma, Anuppur. Upon receiving notice of this case, the non-applicant allegedly conspired to lodge a police complaint against him. That 4 matter is currently pending before the competent Court. The applicant further states that he is employed on compassionate grounds, earning ₹35,000/- per month. As per a Court order, he must give half of his salary to his mother and from the remaining amount, he manages his living expenses with difficulty. He asserts that he is ready to keep the non-applicant with him, but she, without any reason, is living with her parents out of her own choice. 5. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 06.06.2023, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife as maintenance. Hence this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the maintenance amount of the non-applicants against the applicant and awarded the amount i.e. Rs. 10,000/- which is not justified and reasonable The non- applicant made so many false allegation against the applicant regarding the cruelty and harassed/ill-treatment and his family members. He further submits that the applicant and his family members were facing many problems against the non-applicant regarding the said act of the wife of the applicant. He further submits that the impugned order of the Family Court based upon wrongly presumption and inferences which is bad in law at present situation of the applicant because the applicant is made sufficient effort to bring the non-applicant his house and he was filed the application u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act but the non-applicant did 5 not do so far. The non-applicant did not want to come with the house of the applicant and she is residing separately from the house of the applicant without any sufficient and cogent reason as well as she denied to go with the house of applicant in the counseling by which the applicant is ready to keep his wife but she did not ready to go with the applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has made every efforts to manage the married life but the non-applicant did not ready to compromise and she has filed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance amount from the applicant before the learned Family Court, it shows the conduct of the non-applicant. She is able to maintain herself by the earning of the father due to which the non- applicant did not deserve to be got the maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the applicant because the non-applicant is also engaged in the other work for earning due to this she is able to maintain herself. Therefore, the learned Family Court has passed the maintenance amount in higher side without considering the evidence of monthly income of the applicant. Therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicant has succeeded in proving her application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, monthly income of the applicant and other expenses, the Family Court has granted maintenance of 6 Rs.10,000/- per month to the non-applicant as maintenance, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court concerned while awarding the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the non-applicant, 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal