Durg Chhattisgarh v. Shri Rajesh Kumar S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34078 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 400 of 2022 Smt. Dipti Gore W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Aged About 36 Years R/o Behind Indian Coffee House, New Deepak Nagar, Near Jindal Furniture, Tehsil And District- Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Shri Rajesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Phoolsahay Baghel Aged About 36 Years R/o B. A. Vermont Society, Flat No. D-404, D- Block, Baif Road, Wagholi, Pune (M.H.) ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.18 19:05:32 +0530 18.07.2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 1. 2. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act and in exercise thereof, call for the records of the 2 case from the Court below, if necessary, and after hearing the parties in the matter, modify the impugned order dated 23/02/2022 (Annexure-P/1) Mis Criminal in Case No. 1382/2019 passed by the 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, by enhancing the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 60000/- per month as claimed in maintenance petition and allow the application filed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent herein are wife and husband, respectively. They got married on 26.05.2013 as per Hindu customs and traditions. Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife in Bangalore until the year 2016. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, wherein she made averments that before the marriage, while discussions were ongoing, the father of the respondent enquired about the amount of dowry that would be given by the applicant’s family. Upon hearing such a demand, the parents of the applicant clearly stated that they did not believe in the giving and taking of dowry, and as a result, they stopped all communication with the family members of the respondent. Consequently, due to this rift, the elder brother of the respondent broke off the marriage proposal. However, upon being assured by the brother-in-law of the respondent, and to save the family’s image in society, the parents of the applicant agreed to the marriage between the applicant and the respondent. It was further stated that after a few months of marriage, the respondent started pressurizing the applicant to start working. The respondent also began 3 insulting and assaulting the applicant, stating that she did not bring any dowry. On 15.05.2014, during a ritual and recital of the Bhagwat Gita at the respondent’s parents’ house in Mainpuri (U.P.), the applicnat, despite being unwell, was made to sit in the ritual under the harsh sun. Furthermore, the respondent’s mother stated that since the applicant had not brought any dowry, the least she could do was perform all the kitchen chores, despite her ill health. The applicant and her parents were continuously harassed by the respondent and his parents with demands for dowry. After returning to Bangalore, the respondent began abusing and assaulting the applicant over trivial matters. To protect herself from the continuous misbehaviour of the respondent, the applicant started working at Inline Technology. While the misbehaviour slightly reduced after she started working, the respondent used to take her entire salary. 4. On 12.08.2015, during a medical examination, the applicant came to know that she could not conceive a child. On 15.02.2016, the doctor advised her to start the IVF process, but the respondent refused to bear any expenses for her medical treatment. During her treatment, when she fell ill, the respondent misbehaved with her, abused her, and assaulted her. Even when the applicant’s mother came to Bangalore to support her during treatment, the respondent misbehaved with and ill-treated her as well. On 03.03.2016, the petitioner came to know that the IVF treatment had failed, which completely broke her and severely impacted her health. Despite this, the respondent continued his misbehaviour, aggravating the applicant’s health issues. Thereafter, the applicant called her brother to Bangalore and left with him for her parents’ house. 5. Subsequently, on 30.13.2019, the applicant filed a written complaint 4 before the SHO, Mohan Nagar, Durg, requesting registration of a case against the respondent and his family members for physical and mental cruelty and for making dowry demands. In the said complaint, the applicant stated that since she had not brought any dowry, her in- laws subjected her to mental cruelty by demanding Rs. 5,00,000/-. An FIR was registered against the respondent and his family members on 14.03.2020. The applicant further stated that the respondent is working as a ‘Module Lead - Systems’ at Mphasis Ltd., earning around Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. The family members of the respondent are not dependent upon him for their livelihood, as they have joint family property in Mainpuri (U.P.) generating around Rs. 20,000/- per month. The respondent’s father is a retired government professor receiving a pension, and the respondent’s mother owns agricultural land inherited from her parents, generating additional income. The applicant, therefore, prayed before the Family Court to grant maintenance of Rs. 60,000/- per month. 6. After the filing of the maintenance petition, the learned Family Court registered the case and issued notices to the respondent. The notices were served upon the respondent; however, despite this, the respondent remained ex-parte and did not appear before the Family Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent and his family members have been attending Court proceedings in the criminal case at Durg, but in order to avoid the liability of maintenance, the respondent has remained ex-parte in the maintenance case. 7. After providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties and examining 5 all documents and evidence produced before it, the Family Court, on 23.02.2022, passed the impugned order allowing the applicant’s application but granted maintenance of only Rs. 5,000/- per month, despite the respondent earning more than Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. The order under challenge is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which holds that the wife is entitled to 25% of the husband’s income as maintenance. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances of the case. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the income of the respondent as on the date of filing the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973, and has wrongly granted only Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent earns around Rs. 2,00,000/- per month, as is evident from the offer letter and pay slips issued by Mphasis Ltd. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent has joint family property and agricultural land, and that his family members have their own sources of income. Learned Family Court ought to have taken judicial notice of the fact that the expenses for food, shelter, and medical treatment are increasing day by day, and that a small and meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month is insufÏcient for the applicant to maintain herself with dignity. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent, earning Rs. 2,00,000/- per month, has no other liability, as his father is a retired government professor receiving a pension, and his mother has her own source of income from inherited agricultural land, whereas the applicant is entirely dependent upon her 6 aged and infirm parents. Learned Family Court also ought to have considered that the applicant is entitled to maintain herself at the standard of living she was accustomed to while residing with the respondent. The applicant should be able to maintain a standard of living that is neither luxurious nor penurious but consistent with the status of the family. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the respondent has regularly paid the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant, as directed by the learned Family Court, up to December 2024, and that the remaining amount will be paid to the applicant soon. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, partially allowed the application preferred by the applicant for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- and was granted towards her maintenance. The respondent has given the same up to December 2024, and the remaining amount will also be provided to her, observing the income, social and economic status of both parties and the current price index, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. 12. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family 7 Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek