1 2025:CGHC:61547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 431 of 2025 1 - Avinash Kaur W/o Ravinderjeet Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o 82/24, New Deepak Nagar, Aamdi Mandir Ward, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Harsaan Singh S/o Ravindrajeet Singh Aged About 4 Years Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Applicant No. 1, Avinash Kaur, R/o 82/24, New Deepak Nagar, Aamdi Mandir Ward, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Ravinderjeet Singh S/o Kulbeer Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o 101 Prime Corner-02, Beverly Park, Meera Road, Kanafiya, P.S. East Mumbai (Maharashtra) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Bhaktiyar, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Bhaktiyar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 relief:- “The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 04/03/2025 (ANNEXURE A1) passed in Regular Cri. Case No. 142/2022 whereby Ld. Third Additional principle judge, family Court, Durg, District Durg, (C.G.) and direct the Non- applicant to pay the monthly maintenance to the applicant no. 1 to the tune of Rs. 45000/- and also may kindly be pleased to enhance the maintenance amount of applicant no. 2 to Rs. 25,000/- per month. Any other relief this Hon'ble High Court deems fit.” 3. Facts of the case are that that the applicant No. 1/wife and the Non- applicant solemnized their marriage on 20.08.2016 at Alka Palace, Durg, without any initial demand for dowry. However, during the course of marriage negotiations, the Non-applicant and his parents demanded a gold ring for the groom and additional expenses towards the reception. Despite objections raised by the applicant No.1’s family, the said demands were fulfilled to avoid cancellation of the marriage. Thereafter, the marriage was solemnized on 22.01.2017 at Mumbai City Gurudwara, Mira Road, Maharashtra. At the insistence of the non-applicant and his family members, the applicant No.1’s father provided a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- in cash along with household articles and gold ornaments, including a diamond ring for the Non-applicant and gold jewellery for his family members. Despite fulfilment of the said demands, the non-applicant and his family continued to harass the applicant No.1 by raising 3 further demand of an Audi car from her father. The non-applicant repeatedly insulted the applicant and her family, calling her father a “beggar” and pressurizing her to arrange the luxury car. The mental and physical harassment intensified and the applicant No.1 was subjected to physical assault. Even after the applicant No.1’s father intervened and paid an additional amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the Non-applicant’s family in July, 2017, the cruelty and abuse did not cease. The non-applicant is employed as a Senior AMI with Indigo Airlines. In August, 2019, the situation further deteriorated when the applicant No.1 discovered an obscene video of the Non-applicant with another woman on his Facebook Messenger account. Upon confronting the non-applicant, the applicant No.1 was physically assaulted and threatened with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone. Despite making sincere efforts to save the matrimonial relationship and enduring continuous cruelty, the acts of the non-applicant caused severe mental, emotional, and physical trauma to the applicant No.1. On 30.05.2021, the applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant were blessed with a male child, namely applicant No. 2. However, even after the birth of the child, the behaviour of the non-applicant did not improve and he continued his illicit relationship with another woman, namely Meenu Upadhyaye. Consequently, the applicant No.1 along with her minor son applicant No.2 was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on 09.06.2021. Thereafter, on 21.07.2021, the father of the applicant No.1 called the non-applicant and his parents to Durg for a social 4 meeting to resolve the dispute amicably, however, the said meeting failed and the non-applicant deserted the applicant No.1 at Durg. Due to lack of financial hardship, narrating the aforesaid facts, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- for both applicants, along with an application for interim maintenance of Rs. 80,000/-. before the learned Family Court concerned. 4. The non-applicant, in his reply to the application for interim maintenance, denied all the allegations made therein and falsely contended that the applicant No. 1 had filed the maintenance application on false and frivolous grounds. He further claimed that the applicant No. 1 is earning and capable of maintaining herself and, therefore, not entitled to any maintenance. 5. Subsequently, vide order dated 01.10.2022, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court concerned directed the non-applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 60,000/- per month to applicant Nos. 1 and 2. 6. Thereafter, upon completion of the trial and after recording the evidence of both the parties, the learned Family Court concerned passed the impugned order dated 04.03.2025, whereby the non- applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance to applicant No. 2 (son). However, maintenance to applicant No. 1 was denied on the ground that she was residing separately without sufÏcient cause. Hence, the present revision petition. 5 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the impugned order (Annexure A/1) is contrary to the evidence available on record, suffers from serious legal infirmities, and is therefore bad in law and liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has erroneously disbelieved the applicant No.1 on the issue of the non-applicant’s illicit relationship with another woman, namely Meenu Upadhyaya, merely on the ground that the applicant No.1 was confused about two dates and that no complaint was lodged with the police, which by itself cannot be a valid reason to discard such a serious allegation. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the non-applicant, in his afÏdavit, has admitted the existence of an obscene video involving him, though he attempted to justify the same by claiming it to be fake and edited, which itself constitutes a sufÏcient and reasonable ground for the applicant No. 1 to live separately, as it would be unbearable for a woman who has devoted her life to her husband and is nurturing a child to witness such conduct. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has erred in branding the applicant No.1 as suspicious and stubborn merely because she could not produce documentary proof of having disclosed the incident to her or his parents. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant No.1 had lodged a complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC against the non-applicant and his family members, which fact has been admitted by the non-applicant in his deposition, and therefore the finding that the applicant did not lodge any complaint is wholly erroneous and deserves to be discarded. It is further 6 submitted that the finding of the learned Family Court that the applicant is residing separately without sufÏcient cause is based only on conjectures and surmises, ignoring the fact that a complaint under Section 498-A IPC is already pending. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants further submit that the non- applicant is employed as an AMI with Indigo Airlines and is earning approximately Rs. 2,28,000/- per month, and therefore the applicant No. 1 is also entitled to proportionate maintenance, and the maintenance awarded to applicant No. 2 is grossly inadequate and liable to be enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- per month, as the amount of Rs. 15,000/- is insufÏcient even to meet the child’s school fees, tuition expenses, and extra-curricular activities in view of the present cost of education. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rightly passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that an amount of ₹15,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance to applicant No. 2 (the son). At the same time, the application of applicant No. 1 (the wife) was rejected on the ground that she is living separately from the non-applicant without any just and sufÏcient reason. In such circumstances, applicant No. 1 7 is not entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant. It appears that the learned Family Court, upon proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting maintenance solely to the minor child, considering his dependent status and the legal obligation of the father to maintain him. The absence of any finding or relief in favor of applicant No. 1 indicates that the Court did not find sufÏcient grounds to allow her claim for maintenance, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be either erroneous or unjustified. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. OfÏce is directed to send a certificate copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal