1 2026:CGHC:2835 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 340 of 2023 Mayank Tikariha S/o Shri Dharamraj Tikariha Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. (Wt/g2) Near Pujari Park, Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Renu Sahu W/o Shri Mayank Tikariha, D/o Shri Rudradev Sahu Aged About 31 Years At Present R/o Village And Post Saragaon, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and set aside the order dated 24.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal M.C.C. No. 633/2021, & findings thereof and in effect the application filed by the Respondent KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 for grant of maintenance may kindly be rejected, in the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that it is an undisputed facts of the case are that on 22.02.2020, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the non-applicant at Arya Samaj Temple, Branch Baijnathpara, Raipur, according to Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, on 15.09.2021, the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. alleging that although she is a literate woman holding an M.A. degree in Economics and Sociology, within 15 days of marriage the marital relationship turned sour and the applicant allegedly started assaulting her and using abusive language without any reason. It was further alleged that the applicant is of unsound mind, eccentric and stubborn, and due to physical harassment by the applicant and his family members, her health deteriorated. It was also alleged that the applicant neither provided medical treatment nor sufÏcient money for household expenses and that she resided with the applicant only for about five months. It was further stated that on 06.07.2020 she went to her elder father’s house and thereafter, on 12.07.2020, an attempt was made by her relatives to reconcile the matter, but the applicant and his family members behaved in an inhuman manner and ousted them. Again, on 29.08.2020, she was allegedly humiliated and thrown out of the matrimonial house, pursuant to which a complaint was filed at Mahila Thana, Raipur. Due to COVID-19 lockdown, counseling could not be conducted. It was further alleged that on 22.12.2020, after tendering an apology, the applicant took her back 3 to the matrimonial home, where she stayed for three months, but thereafter again faced misbehavior and life threats. On 28.03.2021, she went to her parental house on the occasion of Holi and was later informed not to return. Further attempts for reconciliation failed, despite counseling before Mahila Thana. It was also alleged that the non-applicant was unable to maintain herself, whereas the applicant was earning about Rs.52,000/- per month from various sources, and therefore she claimed Rs.26,000/- as monthly maintenance before the learned Family Court concerned. 4. The applicant, in his reply, denied all allegations and stated that the marriage was a love marriage performed without dowry that the non-applicant left the matrimonial home voluntarily, that he has no stable source of income or property, is preparing for B.Ed., and that the non-applicant herself is earning sufÏciently and is not entitled to maintenance. 5. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, vide order dated 24.01.2023, the learned Family Court, Raipur, partly allowed the application of the non-applicant and granted maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month in favour of the non-applicant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial house without any sufÏcient or justifiable cause and the applicant was not responsible for the same, hence the non- applicant is not entitled to maintenance. The allegations of cruelty 4 levelled by the non-applicant have not been proved by any cogent or reliable evidence and even the impugned order does not record any finding of harassment against the applicant. On the contrary, the testimony of PW-2, father of the non-applicant, clearly shows that the non-applicant on several occasions voluntarily chose to stay either at the matrimonial house or at her parental house for long durations, which establishes that her conduct was voluntary and not due to any coercion or cruelty. A holistic appreciation of the entire evidence reflects that the marital relationship between the parties was normal and cordial and there was no concrete reason for the non-applicant to live separately. The non-applicant has failed to place any legal proof of torture or harassment on record. Further, the non-applicant herself has admitted that she is a well-educated woman holding an M.A. degree in Economics and Sociology and is capable of earning, whereas the applicant is presently unemployed, pursuing higher education and dependent upon his parents for his own maintenance. The finding of the learned Family Court on entitlement as well as quantum of maintenance is perverse, suffers from non-application of mind and material irregularity, and the proceedings appear to have been initiated with an oblique motive to harass the applicant and his family members, amounting to abuse of the process of law. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the 5 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicant has succeeded in proving her application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, monthly income of the applicant and other expenses, the Family Court concerned has granted Rs.8000/- per month to the non-applicant as maintenance, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.8000/- per month to the non-applicant, 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. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal