1 2026:CGHC:1438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 33 of 2026 Sai Kumar Mankunda S/o M. Babu Rao Aged About 28 Years R/o A/208, Risiniya Interli Park, Bachupalli, Hyderabad, Telangana, ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Ankita W/o Sai Kumar Mankunda, Aged About 26 Years Old R/o 77/a, 1 W.A. Type Township Ward No. 22, Dallirajhara, Police Station Rajhara, Tehsil Dhodhi, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.01.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and impugned order dated 29.10.2025, passed in Misc. “Criminal Case No. 164/2024, passed by Family Court Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, in case of “Smt. Ankita V/s Sai Kumar Mankinda” may kindly be set-aside.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Facts of the case are that as per non-applicant, her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 14.02.2024 according to Hindu rites and customs at “Saptapadi Gardens, Miyapur Road, Hyderabad (Telangana)”, and prior to the marriage, the engagement ceremony was held on 16.11.2023 at Amit International Hotel, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.), thereafter the parents and family members of the applicant went to Hyderabad for fixing the date of marriage, and after the marriage date was finalized, the father of the non-applicant stated that it would be difÏcult to bring stridhan and household articles from Dalli Rajhara to Hyderabad and demanded money in lieu thereof, to which the parents of the non-applicant agreed, and accordingly prior to marriage the non-applicant’s father transferred through RTGS an amount of ₹2,00,000/- on 12.12.2023, ₹2,00,000 on 13.12.2023 and ₹2,00,000/- on 14.12.2023 into ICICI Bank Account No. 777701240568 of the applicant’s father M. Babu Rao, and further transferred ₹2,00,000/- on 17.12.2023, ₹2,50,000/- on 04.01.2024, ₹2,00,000/- on 24.01.2024, ₹36,226/- on 20.01.2024 and ₹5,300/- on 05.02.2024 into his State Bank of India Account No. 31979222715, and on the date of marriage i.e. 14.02.2024 the non- applicant’s father also gave a cheque of ₹5,00,000/- to the in-laws of the non-applicant and on the asking of the applicant deposited ₹2,00,000/- into the bank account of the non-applicant’s sister-in- law Mrs. Shirisa, and further gave to the non-applicant a gold necklace of 2 tolas, 3 pairs of gold earrings totaling 8 tolas of gold and 10 tolas of silver (two anklets), and to the applicant a gold kada, 3 gold chain and diamond ring totaling 4.5 tolas of gold along with other marriage gifts, and on the second day of marriage i.e. 15.02.2024 the non-applicant’s father paid ₹1,21,350/- in cash to the father of the applicant and the non-applicant further stated that after marriage she lived properly at her matrimonial home for a few days, thereafter the applicant started saying that he did not like her, that he could have married a better girl, that her parents had given very less dowry and had not given a four-wheeler and the mother and sister of the applicant also taunted her daily by saying that very less articles and money were received in marriage, that their reputation was lowered in society and that they should have married a crorepati girl earning ₹5,00,000/- per month, and after some days the in-laws demanded that she should bring ₹5,00,000/- and a four- wheeler from her father and when she stated that her father had already taken loans for marriage and could not fulfill further demands, the applicant, his mother and sister jointly abused her in filthy and obscene language and assaulted her and upon receiving information her father came to Hyderabad on 08.04.2024 where the in-laws insulted him by using abusive words, thereafter her father withdrew ₹10,000/- from an ATM and gave it to the applicant and brought the non-applicant along with him to Dalli Rajhara, and on the insistence of the in-laws her father transferred ₹4,00,000/- on 10.04.2024 into the account of the applicant’s father and on 28.04.2024 her father returned from Hyderabad and the non- applicant further stated that the applicant and his family members are greedy for dowry and continuously harassed her mentally by 4 demanding money and a car and the applicant used to say that he wanted to marry a crorepati girl, that he was stuck with her, that she should leave the house or die and that he would marry another rich girl, due to which continuous harassment she started thinking of committing suicide and she tolerated the physical, mental and economic cruelty hoping that the behavior of the applicant and his family members would change but no change occurred and the applicant also forcibly subjected her to unnatural sexual intercourse against her will causing physical and mental pain and further on 19.05.2024 the applicant and his parents again abused and assaulted her stating that she would be kept only if she brought a four-wheeler and her mobile phone was snatched and she was restrained from talking to her parental family and upon protesting the applicant abused her in filthy language and threatened to kill her, caught her hands and neck and dragged and threw her in front of his mother and assaulted her with fists and kicks causing injuries on her face, hands, cheeks, ears and neck, and after brutally assaulting her and treating her with cruelty they drove her out of the house with a threat not to return without a four-wheeler otherwise she would be killed, due to which she was compelled to return to her parental home at Dalli Rajhara where she is residing since then, and the non-applicant further stated that she lodged complaints at Police Station Dalli Rajhara and before the Women Cell, District Balod, but no action was taken and one-sided proceedings were conducted supporting the applicant and the applicant has made no arrangement for her maintenance and she has no source of income 5 to maintain herself, whereas the applicant is a B.Tech graduate working in Accenture, Hyderabad under work from home earning ₹1,25,000/- per month and owning valuable movable and immovable properties, rental buildings, commercial buildings, agricultural land worth several crores and earning substantial income and despite being financially sound has neglected to maintain her, therefore the non-applicant has prayed for grant of ₹50,000/- per month as maintenance from the applicant. 3. 3. The applicant, while filing his reply, has denied all the averments made in the application except those specifically admitted, and has stated that the parents of the non-applicant themselves agreed to solemnize the marriage at Hyderabad and undertook to bear the entire marriage expenses, while entrusting the responsibility of all arrangements to the father of the applicant. It is stated that the arrangements for the marriage hall, reception, catering and accommodation and food for about 500 guests of the non-applicant for four days at Hyderabad were made by the father of the applicant at the instance of the non-applicant’s father and the entire expenditure was borne by the non-applicant’s father by transferring amounts as and when required into the bank account of the applicant’s father, which amounts have been falsely shown by the non-applicant as dowry paid to the applicant, which is wholly incorrect, and it is further stated that an additional amount of ₹12,00,000 was incurred towards the marriage expenses, which was borne by the father of the applicant. The applicant has further stated that the marriage was settled through the mediation of one 6 Balkrishna, and that the non-applicant had a prior love relationship with one Prashant Kumar Rao, which she concealed and married the applicant under parental pressure and after marriage disclosed that the marriage was against her will and voluntarily deserted the applicant stating that she could not live with him at Hyderabad and left for her parental home at Dalli Rajhara, and that the applicant never subjected the non-applicant to any physical, mental or economic cruelty. It is further stated that neither the applicant nor his parents ever abused or assaulted the non-applicant or demanded a four-wheeler or any dowry and that on the false complaint made by the non-applicant, inquiry was conducted by Police Station Dalli Rajhara as well as by the Women Cell, District Balod, wherein no act of cruelty or harassment was found and therefore no action was taken against the applicant. It is also stated that during counselling before the Women Cell, the non-applicant admitted her prior love affair with Prashant Kumar Rao and her unwillingness to live with the applicant and that she voluntarily deserted him to live at her parental home. The applicant has further stated that the non-applicant is a B.Tech (ETNT) graduate pursuing MBA, was working as a Content Writer at Globosoft, Smriti Nagar, Junwani, Bhilai, earning ₹20,000/- per month at the time of marriage, is a healthy and well-educated woman capable of maintaining herself, and that by suppressing true facts and by leveling false allegations against the applicant and his parents, the non-applicant has filed the present application only to obtain maintenance, which is liable to be dismissed. 7 4. After considering the pleadings and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. whereby it was directed the applicant to pay maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 15000/- per month to the non-applicant. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant respectfully submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law and therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the pleadings, evidence and admissions on record. The marriage between the parties was an arranged alliance solemnized at Hyderabad by mutual agreement, wherein the venue, logistics and hospitality were arranged under the supervision of the applicant’s father, while the financial expenditure was borne by the non-applicant’s father and the amounts transferred were towards marriage-related expenses and reimbursements, including accommodation, catering, transport, decoration and allied expenditures, besides purchase of sarees, gold worth approximately ₹9.9 lakhs and other articles for both the bride and groom by the applicant and his parents. The learned Family Court has mechanically treated these documented transfers and customary gifts as dowry without any finding of demand, coercion or nexus, thereby committing a serious misappreciation of evidence. It is further submitted that the non-applicant herself admitted that the marriage was forcefully imposed upon her by her parents and that 8 she maintained a love relationship with another person and she voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any justifiable cause, which directly affects her entitlement to maintenance. Subsequent criminal complaints lodged by the non-applicant alleging cruelty were found to be without substance, as police investigation did not disclose any cognizable offence and no charge-sheet was filed; similarly, proceedings before the Mahila Thana were closed after the non-applicant categorically expressed her unwillingness to reside with the applicant and her desire to live separately. Demonstrating bona fides, the applicant has already instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights, clearly negating any allegation of wilful neglect or refusal to maintain. It is also submitted that the non- applicant is a B.Tech graduate, presently pursuing MBA, and was gainfully employed earning about ₹20,000/- per month, whereas the applicant earns approximately ₹88,500/- per month but is burdened with substantial financial liabilities including a home loan of ₹62,000/- per month, a personal loan of ₹21,000/- per month and a gold loan of ₹9,53,000/-, leaving him with no real capacity to pay maintenance. Despite these material facts, the learned Family Court has failed to examine the issue of sufÏcient cause for separation and the earning capacity and conduct of the non-applicant and has granted maintenance in a mechanical manner, warranting interference by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, sought maintenance amount from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- per month. Upon appreciation of the facts, evidence and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicant wherein directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to the Non-applicant towards maintenance. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity as well as prevailing cost of living, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted as maintenance to the non-applicant, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal