1 2025:CGHC:57321 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1199 of 2022 Deepak Vaishnav S/o Late Ramesh Vaishnav Aged About 36 Years Occupation Crane Operator (Carbon Corporation Limited), R/o Raghero House, Room No. 03, Plot No. 1920, Survey No. 201, Sani Chowk, Mato Shri Park Shrinagar, Shramik Nagar, Satpur, District Nasik Maharastra, PIN 422012 ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Poonam Vaishnav W/o Shri Deepak Vaishnav Aged About 34 Years At Present R/o C/o Tilak Das Bairagi, Bairan Bazar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Soumya Vaishnav D/o Poonam Vashnav Aged About 5 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Poonam Vaishnav, At Present R/o C/o Tilak Das Bairagi, Bairan Bazar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Baby Ariya Vaishnav D/o Poonam Vaishnav Aged About 02 Months, Through Legal Guardian Mother Poonam Vaishnav, At Present Resident Of C/o Tilak Das Bairagi, Bairan Bazar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Baba Anant Vaishnav D/o Poonam Vaishnav Aged About 02 Months, Through Legal Guardian Mother Poonam Vaishnav, At Present Resident Of C/o Tilak Das Bairagi, Bairan Bazar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate.. For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Vinod. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.27 10:19:12 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Abhishek Vinod, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been <led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 06-08-2022 (Annexure A-1) and the matter may be remanded for its fresh adjudication from the stage the applicant was dealt ex-parte, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is referred to as the husband, respondent No. 1 as the wife, and respondents No. 2 to 4 as the children. The non-applicants, being the wife and children of the applicant/husband, <led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. It was pleaded inter alia in the application that after the marriage between the husband and wife was solemnized, the husband and his relatives started harassing the wife by making various allegations against her. It was pleaded that even during pregnancy, she was forced to perform household work, and she was abused and assaulted. Due to continuous harassment, the father of the wife brought her back to her parental home on 17.10.2014. It was further pleaded that after two years of the birth of their daughter, the 3 husband compromised the matter, accepted his mistake, and brought the wife back to the matrimonial home. Subsequently, when she became pregnant for the second time, the doctor informed her that she was carrying twins. After delivery, her health deteriorated, and the husband, under the in@uence of alcohol, continued to harass her. She informed her father about the situation, who thereafter brought her back to her parental home on 07.10.2020. It was pleaded that she is a housewife with no source of income, whereas the husband is working as a crane operator earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. She, therefore, claimed maintenance of Rs. 20,000/-. 4. Upon receiving notice, the husband appeared and <led his written statement denying the allegations of cruelty. He pleaded that he had provided all necessary facilities to the wife, and that it was the wife who used to harass his family members by quarrelling with her mother-in-law. It was pleaded that he bore all the expenses of delivery. He also lodged a complaint regarding the cruelty committed by the wife on 26.08.2020 at Sharanpur Road, Nasik. He stated that he had <led an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights to bring the wife back and to take care of her and the children. He further alleged that the wife was not allowing him to meet the children, and therefore he prayed for dismissal of the maintenance application. 5. After <ling of the written statement, the husband was proceeded ex parte on 06.05.2022. Subsequently, the learned Family Court, after considering the evidence available on record, passed the impugned order dated 06.08.2022, awarding maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- each to the children, thereby totaling Rs. 8,000/- as monthly maintenance payable by the husband. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 4 06.08.2022 is illegal, arbitrary, and suEers from procedural irregularities and perversity; hence, it is liable to be set aside. He submits that learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order dated 06.08.2022, failed to appreciate the evidence available on record, which clearly shows that the wife herself left the husband’s house without any suHcient cause. It is evident from her own pleadings that she left the matrimonial home on the instructions of her father, and she did so on two separate occasions. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the wife has not produced any document to substantiate her pleadings. No police report was <led, and there is no independent evidence on record supporting her allegations. Learned Family Court, while granting maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- each to the three children, acted without proper application of mind. The Court assumed the income of the husband to be Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 28,000/- without any supporting evidence. He further submits that after the husband <led his written statement, the learned Family Court proceeded ex parte against him on 06.05.2022 and passed the <nal order without considering the interim application. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to take into consideration that the husband had <led an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife was duly served with notice in that proceeding but failed to appear to restore the marriage. The learned Family Court passed the maintenance order without granting proper opportunity of hearing to the husband. Even the ex parte order is illegal. The husband suEered a paralysis attack (Palsy) on the left side of his body and was undergoing treatment on 03.08.2022, as evident from the medical receipt dated 03.08.2022 and other medical documents pertaining to August 2022. Despite his medical condition, he was wrongly treated as ex parte on 06.05.2022. He 5 submits that the applicant has no stable source of income and is suEering from medical ailments, as evidenced by the medical records on record. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayers and submission made by learned counsel, for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek