Krishna Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Ram Chandra Agrawal Aged About 39 Years R/o- Plot v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:30209 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 502 of 2018 Krishna Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Ram Chandra Agrawal Aged About 39 Years R/o- Plot No. 08, Street No. 18, Ashish Nagar (West) P.S.- Nevai, Bhilai, Resali- Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Richa Agrawal W/o Shri Krishna Kumar Agrawal Aged About 31 Years Presently Residing At Native Place Shri Basant Kumar Agrawal Kiran Kunj, Pw Guest House Road Kotma P.S. And Tahsil- Kotma District- Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) 2. Ku. Reet Agrawal Aged About 2-1/2 Yrs. Through- Her Natural Guardian
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the present revision petition. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice
Arguments
And Mother Smt. Richa Agrawal Presently Residing At Native Place Shri Basant Kumar Agrawal Kiran Kunj, PW Guest House Road Kotma P.S. And Tahsil- Kotma District- Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vikash Ghritlahare, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.05 14:49:25 +0530 03.07.2025 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Aman Kesharwani, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Vikash Ghritlahare, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following 2 prayer: “ It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to set aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2018 passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 101/2012 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg (C.G.) (Annexure A/1) in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 01.07.2007 by following all Hindu rituals at Mahamaya Mandir, Raipur. All the social formalities and customs were performed at the applicant’s house situated in Raipur. Thereafter, the applicant and respondent No. 1 stayed for a night at Ashish International Hotel, Bhilai, since the applicant’s house in Bhilai was a very small government quarter. The applicant was working in Infosys and was posted in the USA at the relevant time. The applicant and respondent No. 1 went to Hyderabad and then Chennai for visa stamping and other formalities for respondent No. 1 immediately thereafter. On 14.07.2007, the applicant and respondent No. 1 went to the USA (Macon, Georgia State). After a few days, respondent No. 1 started behaving badly and speaking nonsensically; she was always angry with the applicant without any reason. She also stated that the applicant had pushed her into hell and that her whole life had been ruined by the applicant. Respondent No. 1 also threatened the applicant that she would hang herself. The applicant immediately informed his parents as well as the parents of respondent No. 1 about her behaviour. Respondent No. 1 regularly pressured the applicant to return to India, particularly to her native place, as she did not want to stay anywhere other than with her parents. In or around October 2007, respondent No. 1 3 returned to India of her own will, and her brother picked her up to take her to her native place at Kotma (M.P.). The applicant also returned to India after completing his important assignment in or around April 2008. Thereafter, in May 2008, a meeting was held by the family members of the applicant and respondent No. 1, where respondent No. 1 accepted her mistakes and assured both families and the applicant that she would live a happy married life with the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant went to the house of respondent No. 1 at Kotma, stayed for a few days, and then returned to continue his job in Hyderabad. In June 2008, the applicant and respondent No. 1 again went to the USA. However, after a few days, respondent No. 1 again started behaving rudely and became adamant. She wanted to have her own separate bank account and wished to work independently. The applicant explained to her that she could not work in the USA independently since she had arrived there on a dependent visa. Despite this, respondent No. 1 started running a “home parlour and threading work” for other women in the society and charged them for these services. It is pertinent to mention that such activity is illegal in the USA without a work permit. This again led to differences and tensions between the applicant and respondent No. 1. Despite multiple requests made by the applicant, respondent No. 1 refused to close her home business and continued to run the parlour while the applicant was at the ofÏce. In April 2009, the applicant and respondent No. 1 returned from the USA (for the second time) and stayed at the applicant’s newly built home in Bhilai (Plot #8, Street 18, Ashish Nagar, Risali, Bhilai). After a few days, the applicant returned to Hyderabad while respondent No. 1 continued to stay in Bhilai, with plans to travel to Hyderabad and the USA again within a few weeks. On 25.05.2009 in Bhilai, respondent No. 1 used to keep her room locked and 4 did not allow any family member to enter. The applicant’s mother objected to this behaviour, which created tension at home. Respondent No. 1 packed her bags and left the applicant’s house in Bhilai during the applicant’s absence, without informing the applicant that she was leaving for her hometown, Kotma. It is pertinent to mention that since then, respondent No. 1 has been residing in Kotma, M.P., and there has been no communication between the applicant and respondent No. 1. Due to these circumstances, the applicant had to return from the USA to India in June 2009. Thereafter, the applicant and his family members continuously attempted to resolve the matter, but due to the non- cooperation and rigid attitude of respondent No. 1 and her family members, the matter could not be resolved. Respondent No. 1 also refused to speak to the applicant or any of his family members. 4. The applicant and his family members came to know from outsiders that on 31.01.2010, respondent No. 1 gave birth to a baby girl, i.e., respondent No. 2, about which the applicant and his family were completely unaware as neither respondent No. 1 nor her family informed them. The applicant was deeply hurt to learn that respondent No. 1 had not informed him about her pregnancy. In or around November 2009, an uncle of the applicant went to meet respondent No. 1 and tried to resolve the misunderstandings. However, respondent No. 1 and her family members stated clearly that they would not send her back unless the applicant himself came, fell at their feet, and agreed to stay away from his parents. They also threatened that if the applicant did not comply, they were in a strong position to file a false criminal case against the applicant and his family to have them arrested and teach them a lesson. The applicant’s uncle informed the applicant about these demands. Despite this, the applicant and his family members continued to make 5 efforts to resolve the matter for the welfare of the applicant and both respondents, but all efforts were rejected by respondent No. 1 and her family members. Due to the rigid attitude of respondent No. 1 and her family members, the applicant was compelled to file a petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 12.05.2011 before the Family Court, Durg, registered as Case No. 234 A/2011, which is still pending. Thereafter, on 12.10.2011, respondents appeared and filed an application for interim maintenance. On 15.11.2011, the learned Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month, which has been regularly paid by the applicant. 5. On 11.05.2012, respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The learned Family Court, Durg, awarded Rs. 20,000/- per month by the impugned order, which is the subject matter of the present revision petition. 6. Aggrieved by the divorce petition filed by the applicant, respondent No. 1 wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police seeking to register a dowry case against the applicant and his family members. The applicant provided clarification of the actual facts, but unfortunately, a case was registered, and the applicant and his family members were arrested in May 2013 and subsequently released on bail in July 2013. After the applicant and his family were released on bail, respondent No. 1, fearing the loss of the criminal case, filed a domestic violence case against the applicant and his family members to harass them. Both cases are still pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. 7. The applicant and his family made every effort to settle the disputes before filing the divorce case, including organizing meetings with respondent No. 1 and her family members under the guidance of elders. 6 However, respondent No. 1 and her family members always had negative intentions, and the situation ultimately became uncontrollable. The respondent No. 1 is well educated, holding M.Sc., M.A., and B.Ed. degrees, and is capable of securing employment to support herself. It is noteworthy that respondent No. 1 never sought maintenance or financial assistance from the applicant before the divorce petition was filed in May 2011. Despite all this, the applicant is willing to maintain respondent No. 2. The learned trial Court did not apply its mind to the applicant’s monthly income and corresponding expenses and loan liabilities. The respondents are already receiving Rs. 6,000/- per month, which should have been considered by the learned trial Court, but a unilateral approach was adopted, resulting in a miscarriage of justice to the applicant. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the relevant legal aspects of the matter and, thus, deserves to be set aside. Learned Family Court, Durg, is not justified in passing a conditional order that runs counter to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. He submits that learned Family Court, Durg, has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the applicant as Rs. 60,000/- per month without any cogent evidence. Learned Family Court, Durg, has passed the final order based on conjectures and surmises and without applying judicial mind. Learned Family Court, Durg, has failed to appreciate the fact that respondent No. 1 is well-educated and capable of securing a respectable job based on her high educational qualifications. He further submits that learned Family Court, Durg, ought to have considered the fact that respondent No. 1 could not even disclose the amount she was spending for maintaining respondent No. 2. Learned Family Court, Durg, has awarded Rs. 15,000/- to respondent 7 No. 1 and Rs. 5,000/- to respondent No. 2 without any basis. He also submits that learned Family Court, Durg, has failed to understand that the case filed by respondent No. 1 is nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition filed by the applicant and his refusal to act according to the wishes of respondent No. 1. Learned Family Court, Durg, has held that respondent No. 1 has sufÏcient cause to live separately solely on the basis that a criminal case for dowry has been registered against the applicant and his family members, which is not acceptable in the eyes of law. If the applicant is acquitted in the said criminal case, the impugned order will become baseless. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the appliant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by