2025:CGHC:32928

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

1

CRR No. 253 of 2022

Chandrashekhar Chakradhari S/o Mukesh Chakradhari, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Murmunda,police Station Nandani, Ahiwara, District Durg (C.G.)

... Applicant

versus

Smt. Gayatri @ Juli W/o Chandrashekhar Chakradhari, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Murmunda,police Station Nandani, Ahiwara, District Durg (C.G.) At Present R/o Village Jata, Police Station Saja, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)

		<br>Non-applicant
For Applicant	:	Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate.
For Non-applicant	:	Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board

15.07.2025

• 1. Heard Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the nonapplicant.
• 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:

"It is, therefore most respectfully prayed in the

RAHUL DEWANGAN

Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN

interest of justice that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside/reduce the impugned order dated 22-11-2021 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice."

• 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant was solemnized on 07.07.2018 as per Hindu rites. Subsequently, disputes arose between them, and the non-applicant alleged that she was subjected to physical torture, dowry demands, denial of proper medical treatment, and was forced to do excessive household work. In December 2019, her father took her to the parental home for treatment, during which she claimed the applicant did not visit or inquire about her well-being. Later, on 19.11.2020, she filed a complaint at the Women's Cell, Bemetara, which was resolved through compromise on 25.11.2020, and she returned to the applicant's house on 01.12.2020. However, she alleged further harassment thereafter, prompting her father to send police and later have her taken back home by her brother. The applicant denied all allegations. The non-applicant then filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking ₹10,000 per month as maintenance. After hearing both sides, the learned Family Court awarded ₹3,000 per month to the non-applicant, which the applicant contends is excessive and has challenged through this revision.
• 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, suffers from procedural irregularities and perversity, and is therefore liable

2

to be set aside or the maintenance amount reduced. The learned Family Court has erroneously interpreted the applicant's employment status and failed to consider the crucial fact that the applicant had made efforts to bring the non-applicant back from her parental home. Furthermore, the applicant reserves the right to raise additional grounds and file supporting documents at the time of hearing.

• 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, (C.G.).
• 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
• 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in awarding ₹3,000 per month as maintenance to the non-applicant after carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The court took note of the non-applicant's consistent allegations of physical and mental cruelty, dowry harassment, and neglect during illness, which were supported by her complaint and subsequent compromise proceedings. The court also considered that despite being taken back by the applicant after the compromise, the nonapplicant was again subjected to harassment, necessitating police intervention and her eventual return to the parental home. Given the applicant's failure to establish that the non-applicant left the

matrimonial home without just cause and considering her financial dependence, the Family Court's order is fair, just, and in accordance with the settled principles of law governing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

• 8. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
• 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
• 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

Rahul Dewangan