I, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) v. Smt. Anisha Karsh W
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:41445 NAFR CRR No. 1061 of 2024 Dr. Manharan Karsh S/o Dr. Kewal Prasad Karsh Aged About 32 Years R/o Rudra Nagar Kharmora, Thana - Rampur, District Korba (C.G.), At Present R/o Care Clinic Nursing Home, M.P. Nagar Phase - I, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Anisha Karsh W/o Dr. Manharan Karsh, D/o Late Shri Dr. Darshram Karsh Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Soniyapath, District - Janjgir- Champa, At Present - Shraddha Vihar Colony, Boriyakhurd, Thana - Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Dr. Sanjeet Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18.08.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. Heard Dr. Sanjeet Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated 2 23.08.2024 Passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 706/2024 by the learned Family Court Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) may kindly be set-aside and the trial court may kindly be directed to decide the case finally on its own merits, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant and non-applicant was solemnized on 03.07.2022 at Korba and since 05.01.2023, the non-applicant residing separately without any sufÏcient cause and applicant made all possible efforts to kept her and to live matrimonial life but the non-applicant did not agree to reside with the applicant therefore the application u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed and before that application before the counsellor is filed but the matter has not been settled. The non-applicant reside with the applicant only for a period of 2 months and on 05.01.2023, she went to her parental house and thereafter went to Raipur for Nursing Training and started residing in the abovementioned address at Raipur. The non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. along with the application for grant of interim maintenance on 14.05.2024 and nowhere in the application, the sufÏcient cause for residing separately has been mentioned. She filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. sought interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- from the applicant. 4. After service of the notice, applicant appeared before the family court Raipur, filed the reply by denying the averment made in the 3 application and he has given the details of his income as well as property and also clearly mentioned the liability upon him, filed the afÏdavit in compliance of the direction issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh vs Neha and clearly mentioned that he is working in the Hospital as duty doctor having the qualification of BAMS and the employer is providing only Rs. 16,500/- per month. The applicant has also submitted his income tax return of the year 2024-25, the annual income is Rs. 1,48,950/- and he has only 10 Dismil of agriculture land, he did not have any other source of income except the salary which is received from the child care clinic. 5. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 23.08.2024, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the non-applicant as an amount of interim maintenance from the date of filing of application. Hence this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, erred in passing the order of interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favor of the non-applicant particularly when she has not explained the sufÏcient cause for residing separately in her application for maintenance. The learned Family Court has not considered the fact that the non-applicant has resided only 2 months after the marriage and thereafter left the house of the applicant without any reason as she could not adjust with the 4 applicant and also not considered the fact that the applicant is earning gross income of only Rs. 16,500/- per month and after deduction, in-hand salary comes out to be Rs. 1,48,950/- per annum thererfore the award of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month is on a higher side as the same comes out to be more than 80% of the total income of the applicant therefore, the said order of interim maintenance is per se unjust and bad in the eyes of law and the learned Family Court did not consider that the amount of maintenance could not be more than 1/3rd of the salary of the husband. The applicant has submitted all the relevant documents including the salary certificate, ITR along with the afÏdavit and reply to prove his income however, the learned Family Court has ignored the said documents and said aspect of the matter and allowed the application for interim maintenance. He further submits that the non- applicant herself is an educated lady as she holds a B.Sc. Nursing Degree and she is capable of earning her livelihood, however, only in order to harass the applicant she has filed the application for maintenance. The applicant has filed the application u/s 9 of the H.M. Act for restitution of conjugal rights which is pending till date and counselling has also taken place however, the non-applicant has denied residing with the applicant. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 5 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded i.e. 10,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the non-applicant, cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Kunal Sd/-