1 CGHC010300852026 2026:CGHC:36299 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1056 of 2026 Murli Koushik Son Of Gandhilal Koushik, Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Bajrang Chowk, No. 11 Sargaon, Police Station Sargaon, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Jyoti Koushik Wife Of Murli Koushik, Aged About 33 Years At Present Resident Of Devari Khurd, Bilaspur, Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.), ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. The applicant has filed the present criminal revision against the order dated 20.05.2026 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District – Bilapur (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 80/2024, arising out of the order dated 04-05-2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, in Criminal Case No.690/2022, whereby the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the non-applicant/wife and enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs.2000/- to 3,000/- in favour of respondent/wife. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the non-applicant/wife filed an application against the applicant/husband 2 before the learned Trial Court under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging therein that their marriage was solemnized on 27.08.2018 at Sindhu Bhawan, Torwa, according to Hindu customs and rites. At the time of marriage, the family members of the wife gave gifts and dowry according to their financial capacity. Approximately Rs.5,00,000/- was spent on the marriage arrangements, and various articles were given as dowry, including a gold chain, ring, Activa scooter, dining table, dressing table, divan, cupboard, geyser, sofa set, mixer, kitchen utensils, brass utensils and other household articles. After the marriage, the wife initially resided with the applicant and his family members and led a matrimonial life. However, after some time, the behavior of the husband changed, and he allegedly started abusing and assaulting the wife and using obscene and abusive language. He also allegedly quarreled with her and demanded that she bring money from her parental home in connection with dowry. When she refused to fulfil the said demand, she was allegedly subjected to cruelty and mental harassment. It was further alleged that, apart from the husband, the mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law also harassed her and subjected her to emotional cruelty by asking her to leave the matrimonial home and by making taunts regarding her physical appearance and beauty. It was further alleged that the husband was having an illicit relationship with another woman and, on account of the same, he used to assault the wife. The wife further alleged that the husband had contracted another marriage and was residing with another woman. The wife further alleged that, being distressed and apprehending danger to her life, she returned to her parental home and narrated the entire incident to her family members. Her parents attempted to counsel the applicant/husband; however, he allegedly abused her and left the 3 place. It was further alleged that the applicant assaulted the wife, compelling her to attempt to escape by jumping from the rooftop of a neighboring house in order to save her life. However, the applicant and his family members allegedly dragged her inside the house and attempted to strangulate her. Upon being informed by the neighbors, the wife's parents reached the spot and took her to Deorikhurd, where she has been residing since then. Despite her complaint before the Women's Police Station and counselling by the Women's Cell/Counsellor, the applicant allegedly refused to take her back or maintain her matrimonial relationship. It was further alleged that the non-applicant has retained all the jewellery, documents, clothes and other articles received by the wife at the time of marriage, and the same have not been returned to her despite her demand. The wife further alleged that she had no independent source of income and was unable to maintain herself. On the allegations of mental harassment, emotional cruelty, torture and the applicant's alleged second marriage, she filed an application before the learned Trial Court under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Upon consideration of the said application, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 04.05.2024 (Annexure A-2), directed the applicant to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife towards her health, education and other necessary expenses. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2024, the wife preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court, vide order dated 20.05.2026 (Annexure A-1), partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs.2,000/- per month to Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, the present revision has been preferred by the applicant/husband. 4 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 20.05.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, and is therefore liable to be set aside. That, the wife had initially filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, wherein, by mutual consent of the parties, she has been receiving maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month for the last three years. Despite receiving the aforesaid maintenance amount, the wife has filed the present proceedings only with an intention to harass the husband by making false and baseless allegations against him. That, the husband is only a 12th-standard pass and is employed at a medical store, from which he earns approximately Rs.6,000/- per month. Out of his meagre income, he pays Rs.4,000/- towards the maintenance awarded to the wife and is left with only Rs.2,000/- per month for his own sustenance. Furthermore, the father of the husband is suffering from cancer, and approximately Rs.5,00,000/- has already been incurred towards his treatment, which is still continuing. The learned Appellate Court has failed to properly appreciate the husband's financial condition and liabilities. That, the husband has always been ready and willing to keep the wife with him and discharge his matrimonial obligations. However, it is the wife who has been unwilling to reside with the husband and has insisted that he separate himself from his parents. The wife has no movable or immovable property in her name. That, the wife is an educated and qualified woman, having obtained qualifications in Agriculture, M.A. in English and B.Ed. She is capable of earning her livelihood. It is further submitted that she herself bore the expenses of pursuing her B.Ed. course. The learned Appellate Court has failed to consider her educational qualifications and capacity to earn while enhancing the amount of maintenance. That, if the 5 wife was genuinely subjected to domestic violence as alleged by her, she would have approached the police authorities or lodged a complaint regarding the alleged incidents. The absence of any contemporaneous complaint or other independent material supporting the allegations of domestic violence has not been properly considered by the learned Courts below. The impugned order has been passed without properly appreciating the material available on record, the income and liabilities of the husband, the educational qualifications of the wife and the fact that she is already receiving maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The order is therefore contrary to the facts and law applicable to the case and deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti