1 2026:CGHC:5823 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 492 of 2024 Atul Agrawal S/o Shri Shankarlal Agrawal, Aged About 40 Years R/o Agrasen Chowk, Ward No. 11, Kharora, P.S.- Kharora, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Rani Gupta W/o Atul Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Ganjpara, Indira Gandhi Ward, P.S.- Ganj, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and set- aside the order dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.03 13:24:10 +0530 2 Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal M.C.C. No. 57/2023, & findings thereof and in effect the application filed by the Respondent for grant of maintenance may kindly be rejected, in the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 20.06.2021 as per Hindu customs and rituals at Hotel Rajputana, Telghani Naka Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). According to the respondent, from the inception of the marriage, the applicant used to ill-treat her under the influence of liquor, and the behaviour of the applicant and his family members was cruel and inhumane towards her. It is further alleged that due to her poor financial condition, the applicant and his family members disliked the respondent and her mother. According to the respondent, she wanted to go to Raipur to look after her mother, whose cataract operation had been conducted. On 18.06.2022, the applicant dropped the respondent at her parental home but never came back to take her, and since then she has been residing at her parental house. The respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking grant of maintenance, claiming that she has no source of income, whereas the applicant is a transporter owning 13 trucks and a big market consisting of 25 shops, all given on rent, and from the said business he is earning Rs.12,00,000/- per month. Hence, she prayed for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per month from the applicant. 4. The applicant, in his written statement, denied all the adverse averments and stated that no cruelty was ever committed by him or his family members against the respondent. It was further stated that when the 3 respondent disclosed her poor financial condition and expressed inability to incur expenses for the marriage, the entire expenses of the marriage were borne by the petitioner. He further stated that he fulfilled all the requirements of the respondent/wife, including extending financial assistance to her mother; therefore, the question of cruelty on the ground of poor financial condition does not arise. It was further stated that after the marriage, when the applicant enquired about the reason for the respondent’s mother not attending the marriage, the respondent informed him that her mother did not want the respondent to marry the applicant and also did not want to leave her house. Whenever the respondent wished to meet her mother, the applicant used to take her to her mother’s house; however, it was the respondent’s mother who used to ill-treat him and stated that she would not speak to him unless he left the respondent at her home. Since then, the respondent persistently pressurized the applicant to settle at Raipur, and on 18.06.2022, she left her matrimonial home of her own accord and started residing at her parental home. It was also stated that the respondent is working as a teacher in Adarsh Mahavidyalaya and is earning a salary of Rs.13,000/- per month. 5. Thereafter, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 15.05.2023, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC and directed the applicant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent/wife from the date of application. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred a revision, i.e., CRR No. 689/2023, before this Hon’ble Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2023. 7. Thereafter, the learned Family Court proceeded to finally decide the application under Section 125 of the CrPC and, by the impugned order 4 dated 05.03.2024, without considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case in their true perspective, allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record while passing the impugned order. Learned Family Court has completely failed to appreciate that the respondent left the matrimonial house of her own accord and the applicant/husband is not responsible for the same; therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. Learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that there was no sufÏcient cause for the respondent to reside separately from her husband. He further submits that the allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry as alleged by the respondent in her application have not been proved by any cogent evidence, and even in the impugned order there is no finding that any dowry was ever demanded by the applicant or his family members from the respondent. He submits that till date no complaint regarding demand of dowry or misbehaviour has been filed by the respondent before the police or any higher authority, which clearly shows that the behaviour of the applicant and his family members during the entire period when the respondent was residing with them was normal. A holistic reading of the entire evidence would further show that the applicant and the respondent enjoyed a normal marital relationship and there was no concrete reason for the respondent to be driven out or compelled to leave the matrimonial house. He submits that no legal evidence or proof has been placed by the respondent to show that she was tortured or harassed by the applicant or his family members. There is no justifiable ground for the respondent to stay away from the matrimonial house. Further, the 5 respondent has admitted in her testimony that her mother is residing alone and that there is no one to take care of her aged mother at the parental house. He submits that even otherwise, the finding of the learned Family Court on the quantum of maintenance is perverse and not sustainable in law, particularly as the impugned order has been passed without appreciating the actual income of the applicant, the dependency of his elderly parents, and his personal and business expenses. A conjoint reading of the written statement, testimony, and afÏdavit of income would show that the applicant has admitted that his income is around Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month, yet the learned Court below has awarded an exorbitant maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/- per month on the assumption that the applicant has the capacity to earn more. He submits that the applicant submitted documentary evidence, including the college joining letter, to show that the respondent is earning a salary of Rs.13,000/- per month, but the learned Family Court failed to consider the said document and passed the impugned order in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The applicant was fulfilling all the requirements of the respondent, including providing financial assistance to her mother, yet the respondent left the matrimonial home without any sufÏcient or cogent reason, which the learned Family Court failed to appreciate. The respondent has admitted in her application and testimony that she is a literate woman holding degrees of M.A., B.Ed., and M.Ed., and therefore, the petitioner’s submission that she is working as a teacher in Adarsh Mahavidyalaya and earning Rs.13,000/- per month stands duly substantiated. The respondent has admittedly not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate her claim that the applicantis earning Rs.12,00,000/- per month. While passing the impugned order, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the actual income of the 6 applicantis around Rs.40,000/- per month and passed the impugned order in an arbitrary and illegal manner. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 11. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondent. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month to respondent. 12. 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 respondent cannot be said to be shockingly high warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek