1 2025:CGHC:36841 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 262 of 2024 Gopal Kansari S/o Shri Pokhraj Sao Aged About 37 Years R/o Near Bantha Hotel, Sadar Road, Nayapara, Rajim Tahsil- Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Chandrika Kansari W/o Gopal Kansari Aged About 37 Years R/o C/o Shri Udeyram Kansari, Near Neha Chashma Shop, Sadar Road, Nayapara, Rajim, Tahsil- Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Namita Kansari S/o Gopal Kansari Aged About 8 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Chandrika Kansari, R/o C/o Shri Udeyram Kansari, Near Neha Chashma Shop, Sadar Road, Nayapara, Rajim, Tahsil- Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For respondents : Ms. Anushree Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Ms. Anushree Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.29 19:34:51 +0530 2 “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 12.12.2023, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, stating therein that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and their marriage was solemnized on 27.02.2009. Out of the said wedlock, respondent No.2 was born. After the marriage, respondent No.1 went to the applicant’s house to perform her matrimonial obligations, where she was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and his family members on account of dowry demands. Despite this, she tolerated the cruelty for the sake of her daughter (respondent No.2). However, the cruelty and physical abuse escalated day by day, and the applicant did not improve his behavior. Eventually, the applicant ousted the respondents from the matrimonial home. Therefore, they are living separately. Respondent No.1 has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant has sufficient income but is not paying even a single penny towards the maintenance of the respondents. Hence, the application for maintenance was filed. 4. Upon service of notice, the applicant filed his reply, denying the allegations. He submitted that he never subjected respondent No.1 to cruelty. Rather, respondent No.1 used to pressurize him to live separately from his widowed sister-in-law and mother. Upon his refusal to do so, she left the matrimonial home on her own. Despite several efforts made by the applicant, she did not return. It was specifically contended that respondent No.1 is living separately without any justifiable reason and, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance. 3 Accordingly, the applicant prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. After hearing both parties, vide impugned order dated 12.12.2023, the learned Family Court directed the applicant to pay Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent No. 01 and 02 towards their maintenance from the date of the application, i.e., 03.04.2018. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 12.12.2023 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and is therefore liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 left the applicant’s house on her own and has not returned despite several genuine efforts made by the applicant. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant has always been ready and willing, even now, to keep the respondents with him, but it is respondent No.1 who has refused to cohabit. Learned Family Court erred in holding that the applicant is residing with another woman, namely Dhaneshwari, and that Mokshraj is his son. He furthers submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that Dhaneshwari is not the applicant’s wife, and Mokshraj is not his son. Dhaneshwari is, in fact, the applicant’s cousin sister, a widow, who is living in his house only to take care of his elderly and ailing mother. Learned Family Court ignored the fact that the applicant’s mother is suffering from serious medical conditions and requires constant care and treatment. The applicant is duty-bound to support and maintain his mother. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is paying LIC premiums in the name of respondent No.2 and also bearing her educational and other expenses. Respondent No.2 was residing with the applicant until 2020, after which respondent No.1 forcefully took her away. He also submits that learned Family Court did not consider that respondent No.1 continuously pressured the applicant to live separately 4 from his widowed sister-in-law and mother, and upon his refusal, she voluntarily left the matrimonial home. Learned Family Court has failed to properly evaluate the documents and evidence placed on record, and has arrived at an unsustainable and baseless conclusion. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek