1 CGHC010258712026 2026:CGHC:31190 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 920 of 2026 Bhupendra Kumar Soni @ Khemraj S/o Late Bisauha Ram Soni Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kirna, Post - Baikunth P.S. Newra, Tehsil - Tilda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Alternative Address - House Owner - Kamlesh Janghel Ward No. 15, Kanhaiyalal Banjare Ward, Gudhiyari, Raipur Tehsil and District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Kavita Soni W/o Bhupendra Kumar Soni @ Khemraj Aged About 37 Years D/o Krishna Kumar Soni, Presently - R/o Village Alda, Post - Tulsa (Manpur), Police Station and Tehsil - Tilda Newra, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Diviya Soni (Minor) Father - Bhupendra Kumar Soni @ Khemraj Aged About 3 Years Through Guardian (Mother) Kavita Soni, Presently - R/o Village Alda, Post - Tulsa (Manpur), Police Station and Tehsil - Tilda Newra, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Sameer Behar, Advocate. For Non-applicants : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2026 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court District - Raipur, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.702/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application filed under Section PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.23 15:20:00 +0530 2 125 CrPC of the non-applicants and granted maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 1/wife and Rs. 3,000/- per month to non-applicant No.2/minor aggregating to Rs. 10,000/- per month, as maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the non-applicant No. 1 and the present applicant/revisioner was solemnized on 25.06.2019 at village Alda, Tehsil Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.). A daughter was born from the marriage, who is currently three years old, named Ku. Divya Soni, and is a minor. This wedding took place according to Hindu rituals. According to the statements of non-applicant No. 1, at the time of the marriage, her parents and family members gave her Rs. 1,05,000/- while other guests gifted Rs. 1,00,000/-, along with various items including jewelry. The applicant/revisioner subsequently took all these gifts along to his home village, Kirna. According to the assertions of non-applicant No. 1, after the marriage, she went to live with the applicant at his matrimonial home in village Kirna. For a few days, the behavior of the applicant and his family members remained cordial; however, after some time, she allegedly, they began to harass non- applicant No. 1 mentally and physically. The applicant purportedly started drinking alcohol under the influence of his uncle, Santu Ram Soni, and under the influence of alcohol, began hurling abuses at her and her parents. Her mother-in-law also allegedly started taunting her using abusive language. Furthermore, non-applicant No. 1 stated that she was informed prior to the marriage that the applicant's family was entirely vegetarian, but she later discovered that her in-laws were non-vegetarian and allegedly pressured her to consume non-vegetarian food. Non-applicant No. 1 further alleged that she was not permitted to take proper rest, due to which her health began to deteriorate. She alleged that 3 her mother-in-law placed a hot pressure cooker on her foot, causing a severe burn injury. They would also routinely threaten to divorce her and throw her out of the matrimonial home. A Madai festival was organized in Kirna village on 16.02.2020. On the night of the festival, the applicant's uncle, Santu Ram Soni, visited the applicant's residence. Influenced by him, the applicant at around 10:00 PM allegedly assaulted non-applicant No. 1 in the presence of his own mother, his two brothers, and the parents of non-applicant No. 1. He allegedly grabbed non-applicant No. 1 by her hair and forcibly threw her down the stairs, due to which she sustained significant injuries. Consequently, on the morning of 17.02.2020, Krishna Kumar Soni brought his daughter along with him from village Kirna to village Alda. On that very day, the applicant and both his brothers allegedly grabbed the father of non-applicant No. 1 by the throat and assaulted him. However, neither non-applicant No. 1 nor her father lodged a formal complaint at the police station in a continuous effort to save the marriage from breaking down. On 17.02.2020, the non-applicant was brought from village Kirna to village Alda by her father. Approximately one month later, on 18.3.2020, the applicant and his uncle Santu Ram arrived to take the non-applicant back. The applicant and his uncle admitted their mistakes before prominent members of the community in village Alda. The applicant vowed, while holding his ears, that he would not consume alcohol and would not harass non-applicant No. 1 in the future. During this community meeting, the applicant was advised to move his wife out of his parents' home and live elsewhere independently, as he tended to mistreat his wife under the influence of his family members. Upon hearing this advice, the applicant abruptly left the meeting and returned alone to his home in village Kirna. Four months after the incident of 18.03.2020, on 21.07.2020, the applicant again came to take the non-applicant to live 4 with him. Prioritizing their minor daughter's future, her parents agreed and sent her off with the applicant. They resided together from July 21, 2020, until December 14, 2020, but there was reportedly no positive change in the behavior of her in-laws, who continuously discussed the applicant's prospective marriage with one Rakhi Soni. 3. According to the assertions made by non-applicant No.1, the applicant is employed as a chemist at Godavari Ispat, Siltara, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/-, in addition to receiving Rs. 10,000/- per month from house rent. She further alleged that the applicant failed to arrange for necessary medical treatment during her pregnancy, due to which her father brought her to live with him at Alda. Non-applicant No.1 subsequently gave birth to a daughter on 15.06.2021. According to non- applicant No.1, she is currently facing severe financial difficulties and requires Rs. 30,000/- per month for the maintenance of herself and her daughter. She contended that the applicant earns a salary of Rs. 50,000/- and receives Rs. 10,000/- as house rent. Furthermore, the mother-in-law receives a monthly pension of Rs. 1,500/-, with Rs. 500/- originating from the old pension scheme. It was also stated that there is a 2,000 sq. ft. plot situated in Gudhiyari, Raipur belonging to the family. Non-applicant No.1 had previously lodged a formal complaint regarding harassment at the Women's Police Station on 28/08/2023. However, subsequent to the counseling sessions where she was so advised, she filed the formal application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The present applicant has strictly denied all allegations of harassment and cruelty. The applicant has stated that non-applicant No. 1 disliked her matrimonial home and refused to live there, frequently complaining that the house was too small and occupied by too many family members. She allegedly used to argue constantly, and on one occasion, broke the wall television with a 5 torch and struck her mother-in-law with the same torch. She repeatedly left for her parental home without consent and mentally harassed the applicant. The applicant further stated that she desired to force the applicant to reside at her parental home as a resident son-in-law. It is submitted that non-applicant No.1 has been employed as a school teacher since prior to the marriage, holds an M.A. degree, conducts private tuitions, and performs tailoring work, through which she collectively earns approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month. Thus, non-applicant No. 1 earns a substantial income and is fully capable of maintaining herself and her daughter. 4. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both parties, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 29/04/2026, awarding maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant begs to prefer this criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that paragraph 18 of the impugned order clearly demonstrates that Non-applicant No. 1/wife herself does not wish to reside with the applicant-husband. He further submitted that the marriage between the applicant and Non-applicant No. 1 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce. Therefore, it was contended that the order passed by the Family Court granting maintenance to the non-applicants is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. He further submits that non-applicant No.1 did not lodge any police complaint for several years after the marriage. She herself states that she filed a complaint with the police only after living separately for about three years. This makes it clear that she was not being subjected to 6 harassment. Non-applicant No. 1 has admitted that she did not make an attempt to resume marital life. An application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was not filed. Therefore, she did not want to stay with husband herself. Non-applicant 1 has herself admitted that she is a teacher and holds an M.A. degree. This fact establishes that she is fully capable of earning an income. She has acknowledged that she used to work as a teacher in a school, which proves her capability for employment. She has deliberately concealed her income. Non-applicant No. 1 has not submitted any document or receipt regarding dowry or jewelry, the allegations remain merely verbal. Non-applicant No. 1 has admitted that no evidence was produced regarding the husband consuming alcohol or using abusive language. This means the allegations remain unproven. She has accused her husband and in-laws of harassment but has not provided any specific data or evidence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. However, considering the fact that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No. 1 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by the competent Court, the said fact, by itself, cannot be a ground to deny maintenance to non-applicant No. 1 and her child. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, and examined the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the considered view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order so as to warrant interference by this Court. 7 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti