Smt. Ruchi Sharma v. Deepak Sharma

Deepak Sharma S/o Shri Tilakraj Sharma Aged About 47 Years R/o Satyam Shivam Sundaram Colony, Behind Makkad Kirana And Vini Saree Center, Ward No. 10, P.G. College Road, Chhindwara, District - Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh (Address Of The Applicant Is Mentioned Correctly) ---Applicant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Ruchi Sharma W/o Shri Deepak Sharma Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 8/a, Street No. 2, Sector-9, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 2 - Ku. Mimansha Sharma D/o Deepak Sharma Aged About 16 Years (Now Major Aged About 20 Years) R/o Through Smt. Ruchi Sharma (Mother), R/o House No. 8/a, Street No. 2, Sector-9, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Abhiraj Sharma S/o Deepak Sharma Aged About 12 Years Aged About 12 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother, Smt. Ruchi Sharma, R/o House No. 8/a, Street No. 2, Sector-9, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant :Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Adv. in CRR No.427/2025. For Non-applicant :Mr. Anmol Sharma, Adv. in CRR No. 427/2025. And For Applicant :Mr. Anmol Sharma, Adv. in CRR No.448/2025. For Non-applicants:Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Adv. in CRR No.448/2025. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06/08/2026

#1. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been =led against the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order.

#2. In the present case, an application for maintenance was =led by the wife, Smt. Ruchi Sharma, on her own behalf and on behalf of her two children before the learned Family Court concerned. Upon appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg, vide order dated

20.02.2025, awarded monthly maintenance of ₹10,000/- each to the two children, namely Ku. Mimansha Sharma and Abhiraj Sharma, amounting to a total of ₹20,000/- per month. However, the learned Family Court 3 rejected the prayer for grant of maintenance in favour of the wife, Smt. Ruchi Sharma.

#3. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred separate criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Ruchi Sharma, =led Criminal Revision No. 427/2025, contending that although the learned Family Court partly allowed the application by granting maintenance only to the children, it erroneously rejected her claim on the ground that she had been residing separately without any suAcient cause. According to her, such a =nding recorded by the learned Family Court is unjust, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is further alleged that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate her testimony, wherein she had categorically stated that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband and was compelled to reside separately.

#4. On the other hand, the husband, Deepak Sharma, =led Criminal Revision No. 448/2025, contending that the maintenance awarded to his children, namely Ku. Mimansha Sharma and Abhiraj Sharma, at the rate of ₹10,000/- each per month (totalling ₹20,000/- per month), is excessive and beyond his =nancial capacity. He further prayed that the wife/non- applicant be directed to refund the amount of interim maintenance already paid to her pursuant to the interim order, as she was ultimately held not entitled to maintenance by the learned Family Court in the impugned order. Accordingly, he sought reduction of the maintenance amount awarded to the children and refund of the interim maintenance paid to the wife. 4

#5. Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Ruchi Sharma submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts on record as well as the settled principles of law. It is contended that the learned Family Court has gravely erred in holding that the applicant/wife was residing separately from the non-applicant/husband without suAcient cause, whereas the material available on record clearly establishes that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to continuous mental cruelty, harassment, and persistent demands for dowry at the hands of the non- applicant/husband and his family members. It is further submitted that the complaints lodged before the Women's Police Station and other supporting documents substantiate the abusive environment faced by the applicant/wife, but the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the said evidence. He further argues that as the applicant/wife, being =nancially dependent upon the husband/non-applicant, has been unjustly denied maintenance. It is also contended that the non-applicant/husband is an earning member and the learned Family Court ought to have struck a just balance while determining the wife/applicant's entitlement to maintenance. The refusal to grant maintenance despite the wife/applicant's =nancial dependence is stated to be arbitrary, perverse, and unsustainable in law. It is lastly submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the true scope and object of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and has ignored the settled principle that only statutory deductions can be taken into consideration while assessing the husband/non-applicant's income. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, improper, and 5 contrary to the facts and settled principles of law. The maintenance awarded to the two children, amounting to a total of ₹20,000/- per month, is shockingly inadequate considering the prevailing cost of living, the standard of living to which they are entitled and the rising price index. Accordingly, the said amount deserves to be suitably enhanced in the interest of justice.

#6. Per contra, Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband Deepak Sharma submit that the the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the settled principles of law. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the non-applicant No.1/wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any justi=able cause and has consistently refused to resume cohabitation despite the applicant/husband's sincere eEorts, including his participation in the counselling proceedings, wherein he requested the non-applicant No.1/wife to live with him as one family. It is further submitted that, in such circumstances, the wife was not entitled to maintenance and the learned Family Court ought to have directed her to refund the interim maintenance already received. He further argues that the learned Family Court has committed a serious error in law by misinterpreting the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and by awarding maintenance to the major daughter i.e. non-applicant No.2, despite the fact that she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the absence of any physical or mental abnormality and without there being any independent application under the Act of 1956. It is also submitted that 6 the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the husband/applicant's evidence, particularly his cross-examination, wherein he categorically stated that his father's sawmill business had already been closed and that he was earning only a meagre sum of ₹12,000/- per month, out of which he was also maintaining his aged and ailing parents who are dependent upon him for their livelihood and medical expenses. It is contended that the observations made by the learned Family Court regarding the husband/applicant's income are based merely on presumptions and not on the evidence available on record. He further submits that the learned Family Court erred in accepting the allegations and documents produced by the non-applicant No.1/wife without insisting upon their proof in accordance with law and without properly considering the defence raised by husband/applicant. It is further argued that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a major child is entitled to maintenance only if, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, such child is unable to maintain herself, whereas no such case has been established in the present matter. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court failed to determine the actual income of the husband/applicant and without any cogent material, awarded an excessive amount of maintenance, ignoring the settled principle that maintenance should be proportionate to the husband's net income and =nancial liabilities. Lastly, it is submitted that the parties have been married for more than eighteen years and the applicant/husband is still willing to reconcile and resume matrimonial life with the wife/non- applicant No.1 however, the impugned order has seriously prejudiced the applicant/husband and is likely to adversely aEect the possibility of an 7 amicable settlement between the parties. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside or reduced amount, which has been awarded to the children and further directed the wife to return the amount of interim maintenance paid to her which was deposited by the husband.

#7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

#8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was =led by the wife, Smt. Ruchi Sharma, on her own behalf and on behalf of her two children before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg, passed the order dated 20.02.2025, whereby monthly maintenance of ₹10,000/- each was awarded in favour of the children, namely Ku. Mimansha Sharma and Abhiraj Sharma, totalling ₹20,000/- per month, while the claim of the wife for maintenance was rejected on the ground that she has been residing separately without any suAcient cause and further failed to prove her case. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Ruchi Sharma, =led Criminal Revision No. 427/2025, contending that the learned Family Court erred in rejecting her claim for maintenance on the ground that she was residing separately without suAcient cause despite the evidence on record showing that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and was compelled to live separately. On the other hand, the husband, Deepak Sharma, =led Criminal Revision No. 448/2025, 8 asserting that the maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month awarded in favour of the children is excessive and beyond his =nancial capacity. He further prayed that the wife/non-applicant No.1 be directed to refund the amount of interim maintenance already paid to her pursuant to the interim order, and accordingly sought reduction of the maintenance awarded to the children.

#9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with the revisions and the =ndings recorded by the learned Family Court while awarding maintenance of ₹10,000/- each per month in favour of the children and rejecting the claim of the wife for maintenance, I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

#10. For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to and are accordingly dismissed.

#11. OAce is directed to transmit the original records of the revision to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Kunal