1 2025:CGHC:56550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1404 of 2025 Ankit Mishra S/o Kamlesh Mishra Aged About 35 Years R/o E-84 Sector 04, Deendayal Upadhayay Nagar District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus Smt. Anamika Mishra W/o Ankit Mishra, D/o Shree Dwarika Prasad Shukla Aged About 32 Years R/o D.D.U. Nagar Near Gol Chowk District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.11.2025 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 allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 and pass suitable order in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 BNSS, 2023) seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 45,000/-, alleging that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 26.12.2021 according to Hindu customs, and from the second day onwards she was subjected to harassment by the applicant and his family on account of alleged insufÏciency of dowry. She asserted that the applicant repeatedly demanded money, including Rs. 15,00,000/- for starting his business, compelling her brother to arrange and rent a commercial shop for the applicant at Lalpur, Raipur, and to bear all related expenses. She further alleged that the applicant was addicted to alcohol and other substances, frequently assaulted her after consuming liquor, abused her family members, and maintained immoral relations with other women. It was also alleged that the applicant and his family ultimately expelled her from the matrimonial home, insisting that she return only upon bringing Rs. 10,00,000/-. The respondent, having no independent income and residing with her parents, further stated that the applicant runs a business named ‘Rechnor India’ with 10–12 employees and earns approximately Rs. 2,00,000 to 2,50,000 per month, yet has failed to provide any maintenance or medical expenses. On consideration of the pleadings and material, the learned family Court allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded enhanced maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment dated 20.05.2022 is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of the case, and has been passed mechanically without proper appreciation of the evidence and submissions. It is argued that the learned family Court erred in granting maintenance without assessing the applicant’s real financial capacity, as his bank statements and Income Tax Return for 2023–24 clearly show an annual income of only Rs.1,37,410/-, making it impossible for him to pay Rs.10,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the respondent is an educated, able-bodied woman earning Rs.13,000/- per month and is therefore not entitled to maintenance; that she had voluntarily deserted the applicant without any just cause and has also filed several false and frivolous criminal cases, including under Section 498-A IPC, only to harass him, demonstrating mala fide intent. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant’s business has already shut down due to losses and mental stress, leaving him dependent upon his aged parents, and the allegation that the respondent’s brother rented a shop for him is baseless and unsupported by any documentary evidence. It is also pointed out that a divorce petition filed by the applicant is pending due to the cruel conduct of the respondent. Hence, the maintenance amount awarded is excessive, arbitrary and disproportionate to the applicant’s income, and the learned Court failed to consider the comparative financial status of both parties, resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rightly concluded that the respondent was subjected to continuous harassment, unlawful monetary demands, physical cruelty, and eventual expulsion from her matrimonial home, leaving her without any means of livelihood. The Court correctly observed that the applicant failed to rebut the specific allegations regarding dowry demands, repeated assaults, addiction-related misconduct, and the respondent’s forcible ouster. The Family Court further found that the applicant is engaged in business activities under the name ‘Rechnor India,’ employing several persons and earning a substantial monthly income, whereas the respondent is entirely dependent on her parents with no independent source of income. In these circumstances, the Family Court, exercising its sound judicial discretion and keeping in view the statutory object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 BNSS, 2023), rightly held that the applicant is legally and morally bound to maintain his wife, and therefore the direction to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance is just, reasonable, and fully supported by the material on record. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan