1 2025:CGHC:59654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1492 of 2025 Rita Jalan W/o Shri Amit Jalan Aged About 40 Years R/o Khatu Shyam Mandir Road, Near Homeopathic College, Raju Badi, Ram Kund, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus Amit Jalan S/o Shri Gopal Prasad Jalan Aged About 45 Years R/o- 27 Away Guha Road, Second Floor, Room No. 205, Near Post Office Don Bosco School, Liluha, Howra, West Bengal, Pin 711204. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 09/12/2025 1. This revision is against the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the 2 Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 92/2024 arising out of order dated 06.03.2024 passed in MJCR No. 1227/2015 by the learned JMFC, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) whereby partly allowed the application and granted meager amount of only Rs. 7000/- per month from the date of order under Section 12 of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 12.12.2013. soon after the marriage, the husband and his family members started creating havoc on trivial issues and the Respondent/ Husband along with his family members started demanding dowry from the appellant to the tune of Rs. 10 Lakhs. On non-fulfillment of such demand of dowry, the respondent/husband along with his family members started inflicting the appellant herein with both mental and physical cruelty in various forms which not only affected the health of the appellant but also resulted in deterioration of her health and also led the appellant to a state of mental trauma which now required constant medical attention. That being aggrieved with the unethical and immoral conduct & cruel behavior of her husband & family members and due to continuous domestic violence, physical and mental cruelty, and harassment for dowry, the petitioner was compelled to reside separately since 09.02.2015. The petitioner filed an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the court of JMFC, 3 Raipur, District- Raipur which was registered as MJCR No. 1227/2015 and respondent appeared in the case but never replied the said application. Copy of the application is being filed herewith as ANNEXURE P-3. The learned JMFC, Raipur by order dated 06.03.2024 partly allowed the application but granted only Rs. 7000/- per month from the date of order, not from the date of application as maintenance even petitioner filed rent agreement wherein mentioned that she is paying 10000/- per month rent, which is grossly meager and contrary to the facts, evidence, and settled law therefore, petitioner preferred criminal appeal no. 92/2024 under section 29 of the DV Act before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Raipur. Copy of the memo of appeal preferred by the petitioner is being filed herewith as ANNEXURE P-4. Both the parties have filed affidavit as per direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajneesh Vs. Neha Judgment and petitioner filed her affidavit on 27.06.2022 but respondent deliberately submitted false affidavit on 27.01.2023 and hidden his actual salary as he is working as senior manager in Axis Bank, Kolkata west bengal and stated that his income is only Rs. 67,000/- per month but petitioner obtained information under the right to information act wherein it disclosed that respondent is earning amount of Rs. 11,54,305/- per year as per his income tax return filed on 28.07.2022 before the income tax department which was the income of year 2021 and presently 4 respondent husband is earning more than 20 Lakh rupees per year, therefore, he is not providing form 16 & current ITR return documents. Copy of the affidavit dated 27.06.2022 as well as affidavit dated 27.01.2023 are being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-5. 3. Detailed examination & cross-examination of petitioner & her father and also respondent's evidence was recorded by the learned Trial Court wherein petitioner & her father have specifically mentioned all the necessary facts and grounds that how the cruelty was done and due to the said cruelty, how it was effect upon the body of the petitioner and since then petitioner is continuously suffering from various diseases and also suffering from financial crises and under the domestic violence act, case was initially filed on 21.09.2015 and after completion of almost 10 precious years, application decided and in the impugned order leaned trial court has partly allowed the application and given only amount of Rs. 7000/- from the date of order, not granted the said amount from the date of filing of application and respondent had tried to make every effort to adjourned the matter and therefore application was pending almost 10 years. Copy of evidence of witnesses are being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P- 6. Petitioner has also sought relief for return of stridhan which was given by the petitioner's family at the time of marriage & thereafter, list of the items has already been mentioned in the application, it is pertinent to mention herein that at the time of the marriage, the 5 petitioner herein was gifted with certain gold and silver jewellery, to the tune of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Thirteen lakh only) approximately, the petitioner was also handed the cash amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty thousand Only) to the respondent/ husband to purchase bed, mattress, showcase, dressing table, almirah, fridge, washing machine, LCD television and other valuable items but the said items have not been return back to the petitioner as she has requested many time to the respondent husband. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned orders dated 06.03.2024 & 10.11.2025 are bad in the both facts as well as law and liable to be set aside and enhance & modify the maintenance amount. Learned trial court has erred in appreciating evidence regarding the respondent's income as respondent is salaried employee since 2007 and working as senior manager in Axis Bank, Kolkata west bengal, earning approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month as per 2021 ITR return, Income Tax Return statements were placed on record and presently respondent husband is earning more than 20 Lakh rupees per year, therefore, he is not providing form 16 & current ITR return documents, despite this, the courts below granted only 7,000/- per month from the date of order, even not considered that petitioner is fighting this case from the year of 2015 and not granted the said benefit from the date of application, which is arbitrary and perverse, even respondent has not filed any reply 6 before the learned JMFC while deciding the application. The learned courts below have failed to appreciate that the petitioner is suffering from severe medical ailments due to the ill-treatment of respondent/husband, the petitioner due to numerous acts of cruelty suffers from the following medical problems as listed below; i. Brain Tumor, ii. Spinal L4, L5 pain, iii. Cervical Pain, iv. Ashthama, v. Thyroid THS, vi. Migraine, vii. Skin allergy, etc. and continuously taking treatment from expert doctors in various cities & multiple places, due to high price of medical treatment and expenses, even outside of CMC Vellore and Raipur also and requiring continuous medical treatment and expenditure, the courts failed to consider her medical needs. Because, the learned courts below have failed to appreciate that the petitioner resides in a rented house since 2015 and petitioner is also submitting rent agreement of Rs. 10,000/- per month which was paid by the petitioner towards the rent and cost of living in Raipur, Husband's standard of living & Rising medical expenses has not been considered and there is several judgments whereby judicial precedents mandating maintenance in accordance with husband's income and lifestyle. The learned courts below have failed to consider the affidavit filed by both the parties as per direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajneesh Vs. Neha Judgment and petitioner filed her affidavit on 27.06.2022 but respondent deliberately submitted false affidavit on 27.01.2023 and hidden his actual salary and stated that his 7 income is only Rs. 67,000/- per month but petitioner obtained information under the right to information act wherein it disclosed that respondent is salaried employee since 2007 and working as senior manager in Axis Bank, Kolkata west bengal, earning amount of Rs. 11,54,305/- per year as per his income tax return filed on 28.07.2022 before the income tax department which was the income of 2021 and presently respondent husband is earning more than 20 Lakh rupees per year, therefore he is not providing form 16 & current ITR return documents & currently getting higher salary which is not disclosed by respondent, this fact has not been considered. Learned Court below has failed to appreciate the legal principles for deciding the application for grant of maintenance, maintenance must ensure dignity, sustenance, and similar lifestyle and award of Rs. 7000/- per month, even petitioner has submitted the rent agreement wherein she is regularly paying 10,000/- per month rent but without considering the said fact arbitrarily passed the orders impugned and is illusory, defeating the objective of the Act. That the learned both the court below ought to have consider that the petitioner has filed the said application under the domestic violence act in the year of 2015 and the said application has been decided in the year of 2024 i.e. after laps of more than 09 years and granted the maintenance amount of Rs. 7000/- per month from the date of order, not from the date of application which highly injustice to the petitioner. Learned both the court below has not considered the application 8 submitted by the petitioner that stridhan has not been return back to the petitioner and petitioner has also sought relief for return of stridhan which was given by the petitioner's family at the time of marriage & thereafter, list of the items has already been mentioned in the application, it is pertinent to mention herein that at the time of the marriage, the petitioner herein was gifted with certain gold and silver jewellery, to the tune of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Thirteen lakh only) approximately, the petitioner was also handed the cash amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty thousand Only) to the respondent/ husband to purchase bed, mattress, showcase, dressing table, almirah, fridge, washing machine, LCD television and other valuable items but the said items have not been return back to the petitioner as she has requested many time to the respondent husband. This fact makes it crystal clear that respondent is a disgruntled husband and not willing to perform her marital obligations and is willfully avoiding his duties of a husband and is misusing the court proceedings as a tool to harass the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant challenging the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, whereby monthly allowance of 7,000/- towards rent was granted under the ₹ provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence 9 Act, 2005. 7. From a scrutiny of the pleadings, evidence, and documents placed on record, it is evident that the relationship between the parties as legally wedded spouses is undisputed. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the material available, has recorded findings that the allegations relating to medical and psychological expenses were not supported by independent or cogent evidence. No medical records or expert opinion were produced to substantiate the claim of additional monetary requirement on that count. 8. The record further reveals that Respondent is employed and has already been paying maintenance of 18,000/- per month ₹ pursuant to orders of the competent Family Court. Keeping in view the income of the respondent, the existing maintenance, and the overall facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court assessed the requirement of the applicant and fixed rental assistance at 7,000/- per month, which cannot be said to be arbitrary, ₹ inadequate, or perverse. 9. It is well settled that an appellate Court does not substitute its own view merely because another view is possible, unless the impugned order suffers from illegality, material irregularity, or perversity. The impugned order reflects proper application of mind, is based on evidence on record, and is in consonance with the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 10. The appeal appears to be an attempt to seek enhancement of the 10 amount without demonstrating any error of law or fact in the impugned order. No ground is made out warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima