1 2025:CGHC:50027-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 434 of 2024 1 - Narayan Prasad Sharma S/o Dhanush Prasad Sharma Aged About 75 Years Occupation- Agriculture And Yajmani (Purohiti), R/o Maa Mahamaya Mandir Gopibandh Mohalla, Ward No. 04 Pandariya, Post Police Station And Tahsil - Pandariya, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kamini Sharma W/o Late Pradeep Aged About 40 Years R/o Maa Mahamaya Mandir Gopibandh Mohalla, Ward No. 04, Pandariya, Post, Police Station And Tahsil - Pandariya, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) Present Address- House Of Father Late Ashwani Sharma, Gupta Mohalla Hatri Para Kawardha, Post And Police Station - Kawardha, Tahsil - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Vipul Sharma S/o Late Pradeep Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kamini Sharma W/o Late Pradeep Sharma, R/o Maa Mahamaya Mandir Gopibandh Mohalla, Ward No. 04, Pandariya, Post, Police Station And Tahsil - Pandariya, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) Present Address- House Of Father Late Ashwani Sharma, Gupta Mohalla Hatri Para Kawardha, Post And Police Station - Kawardha, Tahsil - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - Anshu Sharma @ Tejash S/o Late Pradeep Sharma Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kamini Sharma W/o Late Pradeep Sharma, R/o Maa Mahamaya Mandir ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Gopibandh Mohalla, Ward No. 04, Pandariya, Post, Police Station And Tahsil - Pandariya, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) Present Address- House Of Father Late Ashwani Sharma, Gupta Mohalla Hatri Para Kawardha, Post And Police Station - Kawardha, Tahsil - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate (Division Bench) Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 08.10.2025 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 58A/2023 (Annexure A-1), whereby the application filed by the respondents under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 for grant of maintenance has been partly allowed, the appellant is filing the present appeal before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the legality, propriety, and correctness of the said judgment and decree. 2. Facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that the respondents had instituted an application under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the present appellant. It was inter alia pleaded therein that the marriage of respondent No.1 was solemnized with Late Pradeep Sharma, the son of the 3 present appellant, on 17.05.2006 at Kawardha, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It was further submitted that the husband of respondent No.1 was engaged in agricultural activities on his ancestral land and also performed religious rituals and Purohiti/Yajmani to earn his livelihood. However, he unfortunately expired on 17.11.2017 after a prolonged illness. After the demise of her husband, respondent No.1 continued to reside in her matrimonial home for about one year, but thereafter, the appellant and other in-laws allegedly started subjecting her and her minor children to cruelty, harassment, and ill-treatment, resulting in severe emotional distress and financial hardship. The appellant, in his written statement, denied all adverse allegations and submitted that at the time of marriage, the father of respondent No.1 had given only household articles, which were still retained by her. It was contended that the motorcycle owned by the deceased was sold to meet his medical expenses and that the deceased did not assist the appellant in agricultural activities, though he occasionally accompanied him for Purohiti. The appellant further stated that after the death of her husband, respondent No.1 and her children were living peacefully with the appellant’s family, and their medical treatment was being duly taken care of. However, due to her ill health, respondent No.1 became irritable and started quarrelling with the appellant, his wife, and other family members, and subsequently began demanding a share in the property, which led to strained relations. 4 Consequently, respondent No.1, of her own accord, left the matrimonial home and started living with her parents. After considering the pleadings, evidence, and material on record, the learned Family Court, vide impugned judgment and decree, awarded maintenance of ₹6,000/- per month (₹2,000/- each for the three respondents) payable by the present appellant. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred the present revision petition, contending that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive and unjustified. 3. It is most respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.10.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, invalid, and contrary to the settled principles of law and procedure, being vitiated by material irregularity, perversity, and misappreciation of evidence on record, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has erred in law and on facts in awarding maintenance to the respondents without duly considering that respondent No.1 had voluntarily left the matrimonial home of her own accord, without any justifiable reason, and chose to live separately to lead an independent life. It is a well-established principle that a wife who willfully deserts her matrimonial home without sufficient cause is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The learned Court below failed to appreciate that the appellant, being the father-in-law of 5 respondent No.1, had provided shelter, care, and financial support to the respondents after the demise of his son, and had also borne the medical expenses of respondent No.1 and her minor son. However, due to her irritable temperament and unreasonable conduct, respondent No.1 began to quarrel frequently with the appellant, his wife, and other family members, creating a hostile environment within the household and eventually leaving the matrimonial home on her own volition. The learned Family Court further erred in failing to consider the limited financial means and liabilities of the appellant, who is an elderly person dependent on meagre income from agricultural activities, while awarding an exorbitant maintenance amount of ₹6,000/- per month, which is disproportionate to his financial capacity and wholly unsustainable in law. The impugned order reflects a complete non-application of mind and has resulted in grave injustice to the appellant. It is therefore humbly submitted that the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.10.2024 deserve to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. Upon careful scrutiny of the pleadings, evidence, and other materials on record, it is evident that the learned Family Court duly considered all relevant facts and circumstances, including the financial capacity of the appellant and the needs of the 6 respondents, in exercising its discretion under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, to determine a fair and reasonable maintenance amount. While the appellant has contended that respondent No.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home, the Court, after evaluating the evidence, was satisfied that the respondents were entitled to maintenance due to their ongoing financial requirements and the absence of any alternative means of support. A meticulous examination of the record reveals no material irregularity, perversity, or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree warranting interference. The maintenance awarded is proportionate, reasonable, and within the discretionary powers of the Family Court, having regard to the circumstances of the case. In view of the foregoing, the revision petition filed by the appellant is devoid of merit and is therefore dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 58A/2023 is accordingly upheld. 6. In view of the foregoing, the revision petition filed by the appellant lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Saxena