Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36518 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1270 of 2024 Mr. Raveeshkant Agarwal S/o Gynendra Agarwal Aged About 34 Years R/o Plot No.05 NP Sai Nagar, Badangpet Village, Balpur Mandal, District Rangareddy, Telangana ... Applicant versus
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Shristi Sinha W/o Raveeshkant Agrawal Aged About 31 Years R/o Bhartiya Nagar Thana Civil Line, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. S.P.Sannat, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gorelal Tondon, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.29 10:47:34 +0530 28.07.2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 10.12.2022 passed by the learned Principal Family Court Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC No. 403/2021, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent/wife till the date they both reside together. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent were married on 2 16/04/2016 in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, as per Hindu rituals. After marriage, the respondent resided at the applicant’s parental home for about a week, thereafter moving with the applicant to Chennai, where he was employed. In May 2016, the respondent visited her parental home in Bilaspur and in-laws' home in Raipur. Later, she accompanied the applicant to Bangalore and Hyderabad due to his job transfers. On 13/10/2016, she took up employment as a teacher at Ramana School, Chennai, with a monthly salary of >21,125, which she left in November 2017. She then joined Chinmayee Public School, Bangalore, in December 2017, earning >18,000 per month. During this period, her behavior allegedly became abusive and threatening. She pressured the applicant to live away from his parents and compelled them to leave Hyderabad. On 27/06/2020, the respondent, of her own volition, booked a flight to Raipur and subsequently moved to Bilaspur with her parents. Despite several efforts by the applicant to reconcile, she refused to return to the matrimonial home, causing the applicant emotional distress. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 CrPC on 12/07/2021, which was allowed by the learned Family Court on 10/12/2022. It is respectfully submitted that the order is contrary to law. The Family Court relied upon an alleged compromise between the parties; however, no such compromise deed exists on record, nor was one ever executed, as required by law. 3. The applicant made several genuine efforts to reconcile and even filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which is pending before the Family Court. Moreover, the respondent has filed a case under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu 3 Marriage Act, clearly indicating her unwillingness to continue the marriage. Hence, the condition imposed in the impugned order—that maintenance is payable "till they both reside together"—is misconceived. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter remanded to the Family Court for adjudication on merits, considering the entire factual matrix. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 10/12/2022 is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Principal Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and documents placed on record, and thus the order deserves to be quashed. The learned Court erred in assuming that the applicant earns >95,000 per month. The applicant has already filed a detailed affidavit refuting this claim, which was not duly considered by the Court. Furthermore, the respondent was gainfully employed. The learned Court failed to consider that it was the respondent who voluntarily and forcefully left the matrimonial home in 2020 and has been residing with her parents in Bilaspur ever since. The marriage has virtually broken down due to the conduct of the non-applicant, who is now seeking to unjustly benefit from her own wrongdoing. The respondent filed multiple complaints under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, leveling false and baseless allegations against the applicant and his family. The impugned order wrongly records that the application under Section 125 CrPC was allowed on the basis of a compromise, despite there being no written compromise deed on record, as required by law. The applicant made several genuine attempts to resolve the marital issues and resume cohabitation. His bona fides are evident from the fact that he has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which is currently pending before the 4 learned Family Court. Therefore, the impugned order ought to be set aside and the matter decided on merits after proper appreciation of all facts and circumstances. It is is significant to note that the respondent has also filed a case under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which clearly shows her unwillingness to resume matrimonial life. Thus, the condition imposed in the impugned order—directing the applicant to pay maintenance of >8,000 per month “till they both reside together”—is not
Decision
sustainable and should be struck down. In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter remanded to the Family Court for fresh adjudication on merits. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 10.12.2022 passed by the learned Principal Family Court Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC No. 403/2021, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent/wife, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned 6. 7. 5 Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice 8. 9. Preeti