1 CGHC010211652025 2026:CGHC:35595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 674 of 2025 Durgesh Soni S/o Chhabilal Soni Aged About 44 Years Constable Grp No. 285, R/o Danteshwari Vihar Colony, Bhatagaon, Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Aashalata Soni W/o Durgesh Soni Aged About 38 Years Present R/o Shri Hemlal Swarnkar Ka Niwas, Imlibhata, Ward No. 02, Near Rathore Aata Chakki, Mahasamund, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Case No.118/2019, whereby the application preferred by the non-applicant/wife under Section 125 of the Code KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of maintenance has been allowed and the applicant/husband has been directed to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) per month to the non-applicant/wife from the date of the order. The learned Family Court has further directed the applicant to pay the balance amount of interim maintenance and to return the Stridhan, i.e., the gold and silver ornaments mentioned in Serial Nos.1 to 11 of the list submitted by the non-applicant. Being aggrieved and dissatis<ed with the aforesaid judgment and order, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision. 3. Brief facts of the case are that it is an admitted position that the applicant and the non-applicant are legally wedded spouses. Their marriage was solemnized on 23.04.2000 at Imlibhatha, Ward No.2, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund according to Hindu rites, customs and prevailing social traditions. Out of their lawful wedlock, one son namely Ashutosh Soni and one daughter namely Ankita Soni were born. It is the case of the non-applicant that after the marriage she started residing with the applicant at her matrimonial home, however, after some time she came to know that the applicant was maintaining illicit relations with other women and frequently used to bring diAerent women to the matrimonial house even in the presence of the non-applicant and the children. It was alleged that whenever the non-applicant objected to such conduct, the applicant started assaulting her with belt and shoes and subjected her to physical as well as mental cruelty. According to the non-applicant, the applicant, who is serving in the Police 3 Department, used to threaten her by saying that if she wanted to continue residing in the matrimonial house, she would have to tolerate everything. It was further alleged that the applicant had obtained her signatures on several blank papers by misusing his oBcial position and threatened that whenever he intended to obtain divorce, he would prepare documents over those signed papers and use the same against her. 4. The non-applicant further pleaded that on 13.09.2019, when the applicant accidentally swallowed a portion of mercury from a thermometer while checking his temperature, she immediately took him to a doctor for treatment. After returning from the hospital, instead of appreciating her conduct, the applicant allegedly started quarrelling with her, assaulted her, attempted to strangulate her and compelled her to make certain statements by recording a video on his mobile phone under threat and coercion. It was further alleged that thereafter the applicant forcibly drove her out of the matrimonial home and threatened that if she ever returned, he would either kill her or create such circumstances as if she had committed suicide. The non-applicant thereafter informed her family members, who came to Raipur and took her back to Mahasamund. According to the non-applicant, when her relatives attempted to intervene, the applicant claimed that being a police employee no action would ever be taken against him. She further pleaded that despite submitting written complaints before the Station House OBcer, Mahasamund and the Superintendent of Police on 15.09.2019, no action was taken. It was also pleaded that counselling proceedings were 4 conducted before the Family Counselling Centre during September- October, 2019 wherein she narrated the acts of cruelty committed by the applicant. According to her, the applicant falsely alleged that she had illicit relations with her cousin brother Prakash in order to malign her reputation and to create false evidence for future litigation. It was also stated that due to repeated assaults she sustained injuries and was medically examined at Ganga Diagnostic Research Centre, Raipur on 03.10.2019, which, according to her, corroborated the allegations of physical cruelty. It was further pleaded by the non-applicant that the applicant is a healthy and able-bodied person employed as a Senior Constable in the Government Railway Police (G.R.P.) and at the relevant point of time was earning about Rs.45,000/- per month besides receiving rental income of approximately Rs.10,000/- per month from two residential houses situated at Raipur. On the aforesaid basis, the non-applicant claimed maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. The non-applicant also preferred an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking return of her Stridhan, contending that at the time of marriage and thereafter, her parents and relatives had gifted various gold and silver ornaments, household articles and other valuable gifts which continued to remain in possession of the applicant. She also asserted that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash, besides television, sofa set, refrigerator, cooler, utensils and other articles, had also been given to the applicant and all such properties constituted her Stridhan. 5 5. The applicant/husband entered appearance before the learned Family Court and <led his detailed written statement denying each and every allegation levelled by the non-applicant. It was speci<cally pleaded that he had never maintained any illicit relationship with any woman nor had he ever subjected the non-applicant to cruelty or physical assault. On the contrary, according to the applicant, the non-applicant herself was maintaining an illicit relationship with one Prakash Chandra Sharaf, who happened to be the son of the applicant's paternal uncle. It was further pleaded that during counselling proceedings before the Police Counselling Centre, the non-applicant herself admitted her illicit relationship with the said person. The applicant also denied obtaining signatures of the non- applicant on blank papers and contended that she was an educated lady and such allegation was inherently improbable. The applicant further alleged that after coming to know about the illicit relationship, the non-applicant and the said Prakash Chandra Sharaf conspired to eliminate him by administering poisonous substances in his food. According to him, on 13.09.2019, the non-applicant mixed mercury in his food with an intention to kill him, whereafter he was immediately admitted to Om Hospital, Raipur with the assistance of his friends and tenants. It was also pleaded that on 14.09.2019, the non-applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home along with her mother and aunt and since then had been residing separately of her own free will. The applicant further contended that both the children were fully aware of the conduct of the non-applicant and, therefore, were residing with him. It was also pleaded that enquiries 6 conducted by the police authorities on the complaints submitted by him did not reveal any misconduct on his part and that the allegations made by the non-applicant had been levelled only to conceal her own conduct. The applicant also opposed the claim for return of Stridhan by asserting that the jewellery receipts produced by the non-applicant stood in the names of her parents and that at the time of leaving the matrimonial home she herself had taken away all her ornaments and valuable articles. According to the applicant, rather, during the period between the years 2015 and 2019, he had himself purchased gold and silver ornaments worth approximately Rs.3,00,000/- for the non-applicant from Maa Parmeshwari Jewellers, Raipur, which she had already taken with her while leaving the matrimonial home. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the applications preferred by the non-applicant. 6. The learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings of the respective parties, appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by them and upon evaluating the entire material available on record, passed the impugned judgment and order dated 03.04.2025. By the said judgment, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application preferred by the non-applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the applicant/husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) per month to the non-applicant/wife from the date of the order. The learned Family Court further directed the applicant to pay the balance amount of interim maintenance, if any, and also partly allowed the application preferred under Section 7 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act by directing the applicant to return the Stridhan, namely, the gold and silver ornaments mentioned in Serial Nos.1 to 11 of the list submitted by the non-applicant. Hence, this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed grave illegality in passing the impugned judgment and order. It is contended that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant in its proper perspective. He further submit that both the children of the parties, namely, Ashutosh Soni and Ankita Soni, who were examined as defence witnesses, have categorically stated that the non-applicant had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home and was maintaining an illicit relationship with one Prakash Chandra Sharaf. It is further submitted that the said fact has also been corroborated by D.W.-3 Smt. Laxmi Patel and D.W.-7 Nandkishore Chakravarti, who have deposed that the non-applicant herself admitted her illicit relationship during telephonic conversation as well as during the family meeting. It is also argued that the learned Family Court has ignored the testimony of the defence witnesses and has erroneously held that the non-applicant had suBcient cause to reside separately. Learned counsel further submit that the applicant had speci<cally pleaded that the non-applicant voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home and had already taken away all her jewellery and other valuable articles while leaving the house. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the learned Family Court committed illegality in directing return of the Stridhan and in 8 awarding maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month in favour of the non- applicant. It is, thus, prayed that the impugned judgment and order deserve to be set aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the documents appended with the revision petition. 9. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the learned Family Court has elaborately considered the pleadings of the respective parties, the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by them and thereafter recorded detailed <ndings while deciding the application preferred by the non-applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also the application <led under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned Family Court has speci<cally considered the defence taken by the applicant that the non-applicant was residing separately on account of her alleged illicit relationship with one Prakash Chandra Sharaf. However, after appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has recorded a categorical <nding that the allegations levelled by the applicant regarding the alleged illicit relationship of the non-applicant remained unsubstantiated. The learned Family Court has also taken note of the fact that though the applicant had lodged complaints before the competent authorities regarding such allegations, the same were duly enquired into and no action whatsoever was taken against the non-applicant, which clearly indicates that the allegations were not found to be substantiated during enquiry. 9 10. The learned Family Court has further observed that the evidence adduced by the non-applicant remained trustworthy and could not be discredited during the course of her cross-examination. The allegations regarding cruelty, harassment and maltreatment made by the non-applicant were found to be consistent and there was no material available on record to disbelieve her testimony. Accordingly, the learned Family Court recorded a speci<c <nding that the non-applicant had suBcient and justi<able cause to reside separately from the applicant and that the allegation regarding her living in adultery was not established by cogent and convincing evidence. 11.The learned Family Court has thereafter considered the entitlement of the non-applicant to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that once it stood established that she had suBcient reason to reside separately and was unable to maintain herself, she became legally entitled to receive maintenance from her husband. While determining the quantum of maintenance, the learned Family Court has taken into consideration the salary particulars of the applicant. The salary slips produced before the Court revealed that the applicant, who is serving as a Senior Constable in the Government Railway Police (G.R.P.), was drawing gross monthly salary of Rs.74,385/-. After considering the deductions reGected in the salary slips and the actual <nancial capacity of the applicant, the learned Family Court assessed that awarding maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the non-applicant 10 would be just, reasonable and commensurate with the status of the parties. 12.So far as the claim relating to Stridhan is concerned, the learned Family Court has also assigned cogent reasons for allowing the application in part. It has held that the gold and silver ornaments mentioned in Serial Nos.1 to 11 of the list constituted the exclusive Stridhan of the non-applicant. Merely because some of the ornaments were purchased by the applicant during the subsistence of the marriage would not deprive the non-applicant of her exclusive ownership over the same. The learned Family Court has also recorded that no reliable evidence was produced by the applicant to establish that the non-applicant had already taken away all such ornaments while leaving the matrimonial home. Consequently, the learned Family Court rightly directed return of the gold and silver ornaments mentioned in the list while declining the claim regarding household articles such as mattress and divan, holding that the said articles could not be treated as Stridhan. 13.Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the entire material available on record and the detailed <ndings recorded by the learned Family Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Family Court has appreciated the entire evidence in its proper perspective and has assigned cogent and convincing reasons while arriving at the conclusions recorded in the impugned judgment. The <ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are pure <ndings of fact based upon proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary 11 evidence available on record. The applicant has failed to point out any perversity, patent illegality, jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. The quantum of maintenance awarded in favour of the non- applicant also appears to be just, reasonable and proportionate to the income of the applicant and does not call for any interference. Likewise, the direction regarding return of the Stridhan has also been passed on proper appreciation of the evidence and settled principles of law. 14.Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 15.OBce is directed to send a certi<ed copy of this order as well as record to the learned Family Court concerned for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal