Priyanshu Gupta S/o Vinod Gupta Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Jaynagar, Police Station v. 1. Poonam Gupta W/o Priyanshu Gupta Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Jaynagar, P.S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 459 of 2022 Priyanshu Gupta S/o Vinod Gupta Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Jaynagar, Police Station And Tahsil Jaynagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1. Poonam Gupta W/o Priyanshu Gupta Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Jaynagar, P.S. Jaynagar Ate Present Resident Of Vakil Colony, Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur (C.G) 2. Sanvi Gupta S/o Priyanshu Gupta Aged About 2 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Poonam Gupta Wife Of Priyanshu Gupta, Resident of Jaynagar, P.S. Jaynagar Ate Present Resident Of Vakil Colony, Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur (C.G) ... Respondents For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.23 10:58:08 +0530 22.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.76/2020, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the 2 application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. of the respondent No.1/wife and partially allowed in respect of respondent No.2 and directed the applicant to pay amount of Rs. 8,000/- till she attains the age of majority. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage of the applicant and Respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 24.11.2016, and out of the said wedlock, Respondent No. 2 was born. The respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that after marriage, Respondent No. 1 went to her matrimonial home but was soon subjected to cruelty by the applicant and his family members due to a demand for dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs and a four-wheeler. She was threatened with being ousted for not fulfilling the said demand. During this time, Respondent No. 2 was born. The applicant allegedly failed to provide medical treatment to Respondent No. 1 and ultimately drove her out of the matrimonial home, forcing her to reside at her parental house with her minor child. It was further contended that the applicant owns agricultural land, runs a mobile and electronics shop, and has sufficient income, yet he has not provided any financial support. Therefore, they filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. 3. Upon service of notice, the applicant filed a reply denying all allegations. He claimed he never subjected Respondent No. 1 to cruelty or made any dowry demands. He further alleged that Respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. He stated that he is engaged in a small private mobile business, while Respondent No. 1 is employed as a government school teacher earning Rs. 35,400/- per month. He also denied owning any agricultural land and contended that the respondents are not entitled to maintenance. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, by its impugned order dated 3 15.03.2022, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance for Respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 15.03.2022 is bad in law, perverse, erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent No. 1 has left her matrimonial house and she is living separately without any reasonable cause. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is doing labour work in a private mobile shop, whereas the respondent No. 1 is working as Teacher in Government School and getting salary of Rs. 35,400/-per month, therefore, the respondent No. 1 is able to maintain herself and her children. The learned Family Court has awarded maintenance in favour of respondent No. 2 in higher side, which is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set-aside/quashed. 5. 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. 6. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that the respondent No.1/wife has stated that the applicant owns an electronics and mobile shop and earns an annual income of @15,00,000/- from it. It has also been claimed that the applicant owns land and a vehicle in Surajpur, Ambikapur, as well as ancestral property in Telaikachar. 4 However, the respondent No.1/wife has not submitted any proof regarding the existence of the electronics and mobile shop in the name of the applicant or the income derived from it. In addition, the applicant owns a Honda car and land, which indicates that his income is sufficient. Under the above circumstances, the applicant is considered to be a person with adequate means, and it is assumed that his monthly income is @25,000/-. The applicant has stated that he lives separately from his parents. Therefore, considering the social and economic background of both parties, it appears appropriate to award a maintenance amount of @8,000/- for the applicant No. 02 towards maintenance, education, and medical expenses. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti