1 2025:CGHC:40140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1212 of 2023 Smt. Poonam Lonhare W/o Anjuram Lonhare Aged About 27 Years Caste- Mahar, R/o Village Korrampara, Amoda, Tahsil Narharpur, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Peelaram Lonhore S/o Sonauram Lonhore Aged About 55 Years Caste-Mahar, R/o Korrampara, Amoda, Tahsil- Narharpur, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Kant Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this revision, when the matter is called for hearing today. 2. Heard Mr. Krishna Kant Prajapati, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been 5led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 13.09.2023 and maintain the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.12 10:59:49 +0530 2 order passed by the C.J.M., North Bastar Kanker on 30.05.2018, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicant 5led an application for grant of maintenance under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Bastar Kanker, stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with Anjuram Lonhor on 26.05.2013 and, out of their wedlock, one daughter, namely Prachi Lonhor, was born. After some time of marriage, the husband, Anjuram, developed an illicit relationship with another woman, namely Seema Netam. Upon learning of her husband’s illicit relationship, the applicant advised him to end it, but instead, he assaulted and tortured her. Thereafter, the husband of the applicant abandoned the applicant and her child and absconded with the said Seema Netam to an unknown place. The applicant is a housewife with no source of income and is therefore facing great di>culty in maintaining herself and her minor child. Consequently, she 5led the present application for grant of maintenance. 5. Upon service of notice, the in-laws of the applicant, including the respondent herein, 5led their reply, wherein they denied the allegations except for admitting the marriage between the applicant and Anjuram and the birth of their daughter. 6. After hearing both parties, vide order dated 30.05.2018, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate partly allowed the application under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 and directed the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month towards the maintenance of the applicant and her minor child. The Court further restrained him from committing any act of cruelty against the applicant and her minor child. 3 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2018, the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar Kanker, and vide impugned order dated 13.09.2023, the learned appellate Court set aside the order of the trial court dated 30.05.2018. Hence, this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 13.09.2023 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and is therefore liable to be set-aside. Learned appellate Court has committed a grave error of law in reversing the well-reasoned order passed by the learned C.J.M. dated 30.05.2018. He submits that learned appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is in possession of agricultural land and is engaged in agricultural work, thereby earning an income. Learned appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is a housewife and has no source of income. He also submits that learned appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has a minor school-going child who requires food, school fees, tuition fees, uniforms, books, and other necessary expenses. He further submits that learned appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has not obtained any share in the agricultural land. Learned appellate Court has failed to properly appreciate the documents and evidence produced before it in their correct perspective. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the order of the learned appellate Court, it transpires that the appellate Court observed that:- 23. In the chief examination of the evidence of the applicant/respondent, it came on record that her 4 father-in-law assaulted her under the inDuence of alcohol and demanded Rs. 80,000/- and that her mother-in-law, Nomin Bai, quarrelled with her. From the cross-examination, it emerged that disputes arose between them because her husband had left home; whenever there was a quarrel between her and her husband, her parents- in-law counselled her husband. It also came on record that due to disputes between the applicant and her husband, her mother-in-law left her father- in-law’s house and was living at her daughter’s house. From this, it became evident that Peelarama and his wife did not inDict any such physical or mental cruelty or harassment upon the applicant, on account of her being their daughter- in-law, which fell within the ambit of “domestic violence.” On the contrary, for the sake of peace and order in the family, Nomin Bai left her husband’s house. Therefore, from the evidence presented, the allegation that the appellant mentally, physically, and 5nancially harassed or victimized the applicant was not established. As regards the fact that the applicant/respondent’s father gave her Rs. 2,000 per month, it did not appear to be in ful5lment of any demand by the appellant but rather voluntary 5nancial assistance provided by the applicant/respondent’s father for the well-being of his daughter. 24. From the evidence brought before the trial court, it also appeared that the applicant resided in her father-in-law’s house and sustained herself from the ration received by her father-in-law. There was no evidence on record to show that the applicant was incapable of working or was suHering from any illness. There was also no evidence to prove that the appellant/non-applicant Peelarama had su>cient sources of income, 5 earned Rs. 5,000/- per month, or that he had no responsibility for the maintenance of himself and his wife. Therefore, the order of the trial Court directing Peelarama to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month by the 10th of every month towards the maintenance of the applicant and her daughter, and restraining him from causing any mental, physical, or economic harassment, was not sustainable and was set aside. Consequently, the appeal 5led by the appellant was allowed. Therefore, the order passed by the learned appellate Court is just and proper. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 5nding recorded by the learned appellate Court, I am of the view that the learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality or in5rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek