1 2025:CGHC:20821 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 20.02.2025 Judgment delivered on : 06.05.2025 CRR No. 1137 of 2024 1 - Smt. S. Lavanya Reddi W/o S. Surynarayan Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 34, Sanjay Gandhi Ward, Jagdalpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Present Address Old Bus Stand, Bijapur, Tahsil And District Bijapur (C.G.) 2 - Ishita Reddi D/o S. Surynarayan Reddi Aged About 5 Years Minor And Applicant No. 1 Is Legal Guardian Of Applicant No. 2 R/o Ward No. 34, Sanjay Gandhi Ward, Jagdalpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Present Address Old Bus Stand, Bijapur, Tahsil And District Bijapur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus S. Surynarayan Reddi S/o Late S. Manohar Reddi Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 34, Sanjay Gandhi Ward, Jagdalpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulysan, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge C A V Judgment 1. This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Learned Family Court, Dantewada, District South Dantewada, Chhattisgarh in Misc. Cr. Case No. 24/2023 in which the application of respondent-wife for grant of maintenance was partly allowed and learned Family Court directed the applicant to pay sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the applicant no.2 as maintenance but applicant no. 1 was not entitled for any maintenance. 2 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the applicant no. 1 and respondent are the legally wedded husband wife. Out of the said wedlock a girl child was born who is applicant no. 2 herein. It has been alleged by the applicant no. 1 that after five months of their marriage respondent started abusing her and targeted her for her dark complexion and even abused her for not looking beautiful and for not making good food. It is also alleged that the respondent used to torture her on the pretext of dowry. The applicant no. 1 made a complaint about this kind of behavior of the respondent in the Jagdalpur Police Station. The respondent was warned by the police of the Jagdalpur Police Station. Thereafter applicant no. 1 had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the concerned Family Court of Dantewada, District Bastar Chhattisgarh has granted maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month as interim maintenance. But even after that the applicant has alleged that the respondent did not changed at all and on 01.11.2018 respondent beats and gave threatens to kill her and thrown her outside his home and after that she started living with her parents at her parental home until recently when she shifted to a rental house on 21.11.2023 along with her daughter. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dantewada, District South Dantewada Chhattisgarh passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 87/2023 wherein an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month to applicant no. 2 and nothing to applicant no. 1 is bad in law and passed without appreciating the record and evidences of the case. The respondent used to harass the applicant no. 1 and always 3 torture her and humiliated her in every aspect due to her looks and dark complexion. He also contended that the learned Family Court has itself mentioned in the judgment that the respondent has admitted in his evidence that he received a net salary of Rs. 34,400/- and a gross salary of Rs. 47,800 in the month of May,2024. Salary certificate from the month of July to September, 2023 was also produced before the learned Family Court. The applicant no. 1 has no source of income to maintain herself and she doe have a sufficient reason to leave her matrimonial house due to respondent’s behavior which is erroneos and contrary to law. It is therefore liable to be set aside and the quantum of maintenance for both the applicant’s to be enhanced to the tune of Rs. 16,000/- per month. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that after due diligence and observation the learned trial court has passed the judgment. There is no need of interference as the applicant no. 1 has been granted with Rs. 4,000/- per month and thereafter the applicant no. 2 has been granted with Rs. 6000/- which in itself is sufficient. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material/evidence including the impugned order. 6. Section 125 (4) of the Cr.PC reads as under : "(4) No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if 4 they are living separately by mutual consent" 7. Perusal of records would show that applicant no. 1 filed an application under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh where she had sought the relief of maintenance from the respondent in her complaint. Apart from this, she has also sought relief under Sections 18,19,20,21,22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, but the Chief Judicial Magistrate found no specific pleading in this regard and no specific evidence has been presented by the applicant side. Therefore, no order was made in respect of the relief sought under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act but at the same time with regard to the maintenance, he observed that the respondent has stated in his judicial statement that he is paying maintenance amount to the applicant no. 1 as per the order of the leanred Family Court, Jagdalpur and in this regard annexed Ex. D-01 which shows that the applicant is being given interim maintenance for a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, in such circumstances when a strong court has already given an order to give the applicant no. 1 a maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- it does not seem justified to get her maintenance again from the respondent. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant thereafter filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 before the learned Family court, Bastar, Dhantewada, Chhattisgarh seeking maintenance of Rs. 16,000/- per month. In which the learned 5 Judge of the Family court found that the applicant no. 2 is liable to receive a maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month while the applicant no. 2 is not liable to receive any maintenance. 9. In case at hand, this Court of the considered view that applicant No.1/wife is not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband ie respondent, as she has miserably failed to prove the principle of preponderance of probabilities that she is living separately from the respondent due to reasonable and sufficient reasons. Undisputedly, the applicant no. 2 is the daughter of the applicant no. 1 and respondent aged about 07 years, hence the responsibility of her maintenance lies with the respondent. 10. Moreover the applicant no. 1 has failed to prove that she has been the victim of domestic violence. However, it is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that there was a dispute between the applicant no. 1 and the respondent with regard to the old mother of the respondent who used to remain sick most of her time. The applicant no. 1 left the house of the respondent, in the absence of the respondent and the mother of the respondent by locking the door and giving the keys to someone nearby. Hence it cannot be said that respondent has thrown the applicant no. 1 out of the house. Thereafter meetings were held in order to settle the dispute and bring back the applicant no. 1 as well as applicant no. 2 to the house of the respondent but the applicant no. 1 did not came back. 11.It is also important to note that the respondent’s mother is an old lady who is suffering from old age health problems. The liability of his 6 mother is totally on his shoulder. Therefore, looking to these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case this court has opined that the order passed by the learned Family court, Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh suffers no illegality, perversity and no jurisdictional error. 12. In view of above, revision petition is dismissed. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Alfiza