Station Bori, Tehsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh v. Sunil Deshmukh S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 393 of 2023 Smt. Kamini Deshmukh W/o Shri Sunil Deshmukh Aged About 24 Years R/o Care Of Jitendra Kumar Deshmukh, Village Bori, Near Bus Stand, Police Station Bori, Tehsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Sunil Deshmukh S/o Netram Deshmukh Aged About 25 Years R/o Plot No. 20, Shivkunj, Borsi Colony, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 PREETI KUMARI 1. Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.24 11:01:19 +0530 This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.506/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has allowed the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance to the applicant Rs. 1,500/- per month. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant(wife) filed an application 2 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Family Court, Durg, seeking maintenance of 910,000/- per month from the respondent (husband). The applicant and the respondent solemnized their marriage on 12.05.2019 at Village Bori, District Durg, according to Hindu customs and rites. Shortly after the marriage, the applicant discovered that the respondent was involved in a romantic relationship with another woman named Sarita, and had married the applicant only under family pressure. When the applicant objected to the respondent's ongoing relationship, she was subjected to mistreatment, physical abuse, and verbal insults by the respondent and his family. They even threatened to throw her out of the house. The applicant informed her parents of the situation, which led to a community meeting. During the meeting, the respondent and his family admitted their wrongdoing and assured that the applicant would be treated with love and respect. However, this promise was short-lived as they resumed their cruel behavior within 15 days. Further, the in-laws began pressuring the applicant to bring 95 lakhs from her parents for business purposes. When she informed her parents again, another community meeting was convened. Despite assurances, the abuse continued, and after 15 days, she was forcibly thrown out of her matrimonial home. On 13.10.2020, the applicant lodged a written complaint at the Mahila Police Thana, after which a counseling session was conducted. Although the respondent initially promised during counseling to keep the applicant with him, he later used criminal force and abusive language against her parents in the police premises. As a result, the applicant was compelled to return to her parental home and has been living there since. The respondent is a skilled laborer, working as a tile contractor, earning approximately 940,000/- per month. He also owns 3 agricultural land, a plot, and a shop from which he earns an additional income of about 92 lakhs annually. In his reply, the respondent admitted the marriage but denied the allegations of cruelty. He accused the applicant of being quarrelsome and disrespectful towards his family members. He also alleged that the applicant is running her father's business, Deshmukh Boot House, and earns 925,000/- per month. During the pendency of the proceedings, the learned Family Court initially granted interim maintenance of 93,000/- per month to the applicant vide order dated 01.12.2021. However, at the time of final disposal, the amount was reduced to 91,500/- per month. Despite finding the applicant eligible for maintenance, the learned Family Court awarded a meager sum of 91,500/- per month. Hence, this revision petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has granted lesser amount of maintenance and same is liable to be increased or enhanced, as per the direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Civil Appeal No. 5369/2017 "Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy". As per the guideline issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 25% of salary is appropriate for maintenance to wife, at present the husband is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month by working skilled labour/contractor and also separate income of Rs. 2 lakhs from the agriculture land, plot and shop, though it was denied but there is no as such documents are produced by the respondent/husband to establishing his income. The living standards of husband is very high and looking to his standard of living, the amount of maintenance would be granted to the applicant. He further submits that Rs. 1,500/- per month as a maintenance is on lower side looking to that the respondent/ husband is working as a skilled labour/contractor. Further 4 the separate income from the agriculture land, plot and shop. Looking to all the aspects, the learned Family Court required to fix the amount of maintenance, but the same is not done. The amount of maintenance is on very lower side in this lower amount, the applicant cannot survive even she is not able to take two time of meal (food). He further submits that Rs. 1,500/- it is very difficult for wife to maintenance herself. After cruelty committed by respondent /husband and his family members, the wife is living separately at her parental home. The applicant/wife established her case before the learned Family Court whereas established the reason of living separately, which ought to be just and proper held by the learned Family Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that in the affidavit submitted by the respondent/husband under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, it has been stated that he earns his livelihood and supports his family through daily wage labor. The applicant is a postgraduate (M.A.), and the marriage took place on the understanding that both the respondent and the applicant would earn together to sustain their livelihood. He further stated that he bears the responsibility of supporting and taking care of his family. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 5 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice 8. 9. Preeti