Korba Chhattisgarh v. Mahesh Kumar Gupta S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1602 of 2019 Smt. Mamta Gupta W/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Aged About 22 Years R/o Opposite of Chandika, Temple, Sitamadi, Korba, Police Station - Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus
Legal Reasoning
Mahesh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Ram Kumar Gupta Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Guma, Post OfÏce And Police Station - Bilha, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobiya, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Paras Mani Shrivas, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rishikant Mahobiya, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Paras Mani Shrivas, learned counsel, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.15 11:13:31 +0530 2. appearing for respondent. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that, the impugned order 2 passed by the Court below may kindly be set-aside and suitable order may kindly be passed for grant of maintenance, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant/wife preferred an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- per month from her husband. It was alleged in the application that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 12.12.2015 at Bilaspur. Upon demand made by the family members of the husband, various articles, including a motorcycle, gold and silver ornaments worth RS. 5,00,000/-, a TV, fridge, and a double bed worth Rs. 3,00,000/-, and a cheque of Rs. 70,000/- were given at the time of marriage. However, when the in-laws of the applicant demanded cash for the marriage of the sister-in-law (nanad), the cheque of Rs. 70,000/- was taken back from the applicant, and cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given to the in-laws of the applicant. Though sufÏcient dowry and articles were given to the respondent/husband and his family members, the respondent and his family members subjected the applicant to cruelty in various ways. A further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and a car were demanded as dowry, upon which a meeting was arranged. However, despite this, the applicant was subjected to cruelty, and the respondent and his family members attempted to set her ablaze. She was threatened that if their demands were not fulfilled, she would be thrown out of the house, and it was stated that they would get the respondent remarried. The respondent is having sufÏcient sources of income, earning around Rs. 10-12 lakhs annually. Therefore, the applicant prayed for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month as maintenance. 4. The respondent/husband denied the allegations and pleaded that no 3 dowry was ever demanded from the applicant, nor was any cruelty committed against her. It was alleged that she is making false allegations against the entire family and that she left the matrimonial house without any sufÏcient cause. The respondent/husband further submitted that he had moved an application for restitution of conjugal rights, and therefore, the application for maintenance was filed on false grounds. It was further contended by the respondent that he has no independent source of income, and the application for maintenance has been filed on baseless grounds and is liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned Family Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the application, holding that the applicant/wife is residing separately without any sufÏcient reason, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court has erred in law while dismissing the application for maintenance. He submits that learned Family Court ought to have considered that the applicant was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry demands. Learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant was driven out of her matrimonial home due to the non- fulfilment of dowry demands. He submits that learned Family Court ought to have considered that the wife is not living separately without any lawful reason, but in fact, she is residing separately due to the cruelty and harassment inflicted upon her by the respondent and his family. Learned Family Court ought to have considered that merely 4 filing complaints against the husband or his family members does not indicate that the wife is living separately without any sufÏcient reason. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that although the applicant/wife lodged a written report against her husband and his family members, the concerned police authorities did not take any action on the same. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that, from the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, it is apparent that the applicant/wife was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands, and therefore, she is residing separately due to the ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to her. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has dismissed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and observed that the applicant left her matrimonial house of her own free will, and therefore, she was not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error 5 in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek