1 2025:CGHC:50718 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 224 of 2024 Kunal Anand S/o Late Yugal Kishore Prasad Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Flat No. 503B, Koyal Vihar Apartment, Kanke Road, Ranchi, (Jharkhand), Office At Chief Security Officer, C.C.L. Darbangha House Ranchi, Near Governor House, Tehsil And District Ranchi (Jharkhand). ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Shweta Singh W/o Kunal Anand Aged About 26 Years R/o Tower Mohalla, Bajrang Chowk Dipka, Tehsil Katghora, P.S. Dipka, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Juvenile Abhijay Anand S/o Kunal Anand Aged About 8 Years through His Legal Guardian, Smt. Shweta Singh, W/o Kunal Anand, Aged About 24 Years (Correct Age 26 Years), R/o Tower Mohalla, Bajrang Chowk Dipka, Tehsil Katghora, P.S. Dipka, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate.. For Respondents : Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.13 18:11:16 +0530 2 prayer: “1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the Family Court in M.Cr.C. No. 83/2019 from Ld. Judge Family Court Camp Court, Katghora, District Korba, (C.G.). 2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 31.08.2023 (Annexure A1). 3. Any other relief this Hon’ble Court deems fit.” 3. Brief facts of the case are the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 12/12/2015 according to Hindu customs and rites, and out of the said wedlock, one son namely Abhijay Anand (respondent No. 2) was born on 20/01/2019. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance from the applicant. In the said application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it has been alleged by the respondent No. 1 that a few days after the marriage, the applicant and his family members started misbehaving with her and physically assaulting her. It is further alleged that on 22/03/2016, when respondent No. 1 informed the applicant and his family members that she was pregnant, they forcibly caused her abortion by giving her abortion pills. Again, on 24/04/2016, the applicant and his sister, without her consent, administered abortion pills to her. The respondents have further alleged that the sister of the applicant used to instigate him to beat the respondent No. 1, hang her from the ceiling fan, and go to jail, assuring him that whatever happens later would be managed. It is further alleged that on 05/05/2018 and 06/05/2018, the respondent No. 1 was severely beaten by the applicant and his sister, and again on 09/06/2018, upon learning that she was pregnant for the fourth time, the applicant, at the 3 instigation of his sister, beat her and forced her to undergo an abortion. On 14/06/2018, the applicant and his family members allegedly attempted to assault respondent No. 1, demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- as dowry and asking her not to return without the said amount. Thereafter, she went to her aunt’s house in Ranchi and somehow managed to reach her parental home in the same clothes. Respondent No. 1 and her family members have expressed apprehension to their life and property due to the acts of the applicant. 4. The respondent No. 1 has also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 5. Notice was issued to the applicant, and he filed his reply denying all the allegations made in the application filed by respondent No. 1. 6. After hearing both sides and upon considering the evidence and documents adduced before the learned trial Court, the Learned Family Court, vide order dated 31/08/2023, directed the applicant to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- to respondent No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 5,000/- to respondent No. 2 (son), totaling Rs. 12,000/- per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said order is under challenge in the instant revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the impugned order (Annexure A/1) is not in accordance with the evidence available on record, and therefore, it is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court has overlooked the fact that respondent No. 1 has not submitted a complete Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities, and several particulars have been withheld, in violation of the mandate laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. He also submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the 4 applicant is employed as a security guard and has an entire family dependent upon him; hence, he bears the financial burden of all family expenses. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate and has completely ignored the fact that the respondent No. 1 has not been able to prove that she is residing in her parental home due to any act or conduct of the applicant or his family members. Learned Family Court has failed to consider the documents submitted by the applicant pertaining to the medical treatment expenses of his sister. He also submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered the fact that the applicant is already paying maintenance under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the said amount is liable to be set off against the maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Learned Family Court ought to have considered that the respondent No. 1 did not lodge any FIR for about four years, and suddenly, in the year 2019, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as an application under the Domestic Violence Act, which casts serious doubt on her allegations. He submits that learned Family Court has erroneously assessed the applicant’s income. At the time when the respondent No. 1 filed the application, the applicant was earning Rs. 33,368/- per month, out of which substantial amounts were spent on his sister’s medical treatment and household expenses. Hence, the impugned maintenance order is not sustainable. He submits that learned trial Court ought to have considered that the applicant has already paid Rs, 44,000/- in the Domestic Violence case and Rs. 1,02,000/- in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He also submits that the learned family Court ought to have properly appreciated the documents and exhibits submitted by the applicant, 5 marked as Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/19. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek