1 2025:CGHC:58421 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1127 of 2022 Sunil Agrawal S/o Keshardev Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Village Barela, Infront Fo P. N. B. Bank, Post Barela, Tahsil And District Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Sharda Agrawal Aged About 33 Years R/o Chhota Bazar, Chirmiri, Police Station And Tahsil Chirmiri, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vaibhav Agrawal S/o Sunil Agrawal Aged About 1 Years Minor (Aged About 12 Months) Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sharda Agrawal W/o Sunil Agrawal Aged About 33 Years R/o Chhota Bazar, Chirmiri, Police Station And Tahsil Chirmiri, District Koriya, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Gouraha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.12.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 17.10.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Case No. 165/2021 by learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh necessary order may Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) and nece kindly be passed, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, their marriage having taken place on 27.02.2020, and they are blessed with a son (respondent No. 2). The wife filed an application seeking maintenance alleging that after marriage the applicant demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry, that he had an affair with one Monika prior to the marriage, and that on 10.06.2020 she was subjected to cruelty and was compelled to leave the matrimonial home, whereafter she started residing at her parental house. She further alleged that when the applicant visited her in November 2020, he insisted that she must live according to the wishes of his family members, yet thereafter he neither cared for her nor provided any maintenance, and she also claimed that the applicant owns a saw mill and sought Rs.27,000/- per month as maintenance. Upon notice, the applicant filed his reply denying all allegations of dowry demand, cruelty, or affair, stating that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home after seeing an old personal chit unrelated to him and refused to return despite repeated requests, he further asserted that he does not own any saw mill. The trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence of both parties, passed the impugned order granting maintenance and held that the applicant owns a saw mill, despite the applicant having filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights 3 and despite there being no material on record to support such a finding. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is unsustainable as the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that no saw mill stands in the name of the applicant and respondent No. 1 produced no evidence to establish that the applicant earns Rs.1,00,000/- per month from any such source, yet maintenance was awarded without any material regarding his actual income. It is further submitted that the evidence on record clearly shows that respondent No. 1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufÏcient cause, and therefore the order of maintenance is contrary to Section 125 Cr.P.C. The applicant has already filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, demonstrating his bona fide intention to resume cohabitation, whereas the respondent No. 1 continues to reside separately only due to an alleged incident said to have occurred prior to marriage, which cannot constitute a valid ground to refuse to live with the applicant. It is further argued that the applicant merely works under the supervision of his father and the saw mill belongs to his father, who maintains his own tax records; hence the Family Court erred in presuming the father’s saw mill to be that of the applicant. It is submitted that the findings of the Family Court are erroneous, unsupported by legal evidence, and based on incorrect assumptions, and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that respondent No. 1, the legally wedded wife of the applicant, whose marriage was solemnized on 27.02.2020 and from which a son (respondent No. 2) was born, filed an application seeking maintenance alleging that the applicant demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry after the marriage, had an affair with one Monika prior to the marriage, and subjected her to cruelty on 10.06.2020, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents. She further stated that when the applicant visited her in November 2020, he insisted that she must live strictly according to the directions of his family members, and thereafter he neither maintained her nor provided any financial support, and she asserted that the applicant is running a saw mill and claimed maintenance of Rs.27,000/- per month. Upon notice, the applicant denied all allegations, however, the learned Family Court, after framing issues, evaluating the pleadings, and appreciating the evidence of both parties, found the wife’s version credible and consistent and noted that the applicant failed to rebut her assertions regarding his income and source of livelihood, including the operation of the saw 5 mill. The Family Court also took into account that the applicant had not made any genuine effort to bring back his wife or child and that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights did not disprove the allegations of cruelty or neglect. On a proper appreciation of the material on record, the Family Court rightly granted maintenance to the wife and minor child, and the findings recorded are based on evidence. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan