[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Mrs. Keshar vs Shri Radesh Yadav on 10 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16726
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 1202 of 2024
1. Mrs. Keshar W/o Radhesh Yadav, Aged About 33 Years Residing At
Ramnagar Rajashwa Colony (Behind Walia Complex), Post S.E.C.L.
Complex, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 495006.
2. Mas. Taksha Yadav Aged 3 Years, Through Natural Guardian Mother
Smt. Keshar Yadav, Residing At Ramnagar Rajashwa Colony (Behind
Walia Complex), Post S.E.C.L. Complex, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 495006.
... Applicants
versus
Shri Radesh Yadav S/o Krishankant @ Laxman Ray, Aged About 33 Years
R/o House No. 91 G, Defence Colony, Pardeshi Mohalla, Bhatagaon,p.S.
Jhansi, District-Jhanshi, U.P.
... Respondent
Digitally
For Applicants : Mr. Arun Kumar Roy, Advocate. (through video-
signed by
PREETI
PREETI KUMARI
KUMARI Date:
2026.04.10
conferencing).
17:21:57
+0530
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
10.04.2026
1. The applicant/revisionist has filed this criminal revision against the
impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case
No.727/2023, whereby the interim maintenance application under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist No. 1/wife has been partly allowed
and directed the respondent/husband to pay Rs.7,000/- per month as
interim maintenance to his wife/revisionist No.1/ and Rs. 3,000/- per
month to revisionist No.2/son.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage between the
revisionist No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 07.07.2019 at
Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, in accordance with Hindu Vedic rites and rituals,
as an arranged marriage. The revisionist further states that, at the time of
marriage, it was disclosed that the respondent was working in a private
company in Delhi, earning a salary of Rs. 1.5 lakh per month, and
accordingly, the marriage was solemnized. The revisionist states that
after marriage, she cohabited with the respondent at her matrimonial
home in Jhansi and later in Delhi for a few months, where the respondent
was working as an executive in a Chartered Accountant firm, earning a
salary of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month, and was also running his own
Chartered Accountant firm in the name and style of "R.K. Yadav &
Associates" for additional income. They were living peacefully in a rented
2 BHK house, paying a rent of Rs. 30,000/- per month. The revisionist
further states that during her pregnancy, the respondent sent her to her
parental home at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, on 17.01.2021, and thereafter,
on 22.07.2021, she delivered a son through a major operation at Apollo
Hospital, Bilaspur. The revisionist states that, despite numerous requests,
only the respondent came to see the newborn son, who is suffering from a
chronic illness and requires treatment at Delhi and Chennai. Thereafter,
the respondent avoided taking the sick newborn to AIIMS, New Delhi, and
Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, for regular treatment from
expert doctors. The expenditure for one such visit is more than Rs.
60,000/-, which has been borne by the revisionist's retired father till date.
The respondent has failed to provide due care to the revisionist and her
sick son, with the sole motive of harassing her for dowry demands. The
revisionist states that when the marriage of her younger sister was fixed
for 28.11.2021, her parents requested the respondent and his family
members to attend and bless the occasion, but they did not turn up, with
malafide intention, and thereafter completely deserted the revisionist and
her sick son. However, the revisionist's parents are simple and
law-abiding citizens, who believe that marriage is a sacred bond which
should not be broken on petty and frivolous allegations. Therefore, they
did not permit the revisionist to lodge any complaint regarding assault,
harassment, or dowry demands against the respondent, leaving
everything to the will of the Almighty in the hope that the respondent
would realize his responsibilities as a husband and father.
3. The revisionist states that despite repeated efforts by her father to resolve
the issues and requests made to the respondent to take her back to the
matrimonial home and provide proper care for their sick son, the
respondent continued to give false assurances. Thereafter, in the months
of October/November 2022, a notice for divorce was received from the
Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, without any prior
knowledge of the petition. It was subsequently revealed that the
Respondent and his family members had fabricated a story to abandon
the revisionist and her sick son at her parental home without providing any
financial support since November 2021. The revisionist states that when
the respondent failed to mend his ways and neglected to provide due care
and attention to her and their sick son, and continued to press for dowry,
she approached Police Station Sarkanda to lodge a complaint against the
respondent. The authorities called the Respondent for
mediation/counseling; however, he did not cooperate and stated before
the Mahila Thana that he refused to take the revisionist back to the
matrimonial home and would pay maintenance only if directed by the
Court.
4. Accordingly, the revisionist approached the Family Court at Bilaspur and
filed MJP No. 727 of 2023 along with an interim application, praying that
the respondent be directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- per month to her and
her sick son as interim maintenance. The respondent filed a statement of
solemn affirmation stating his income to be approximately Rs. 3.5 lakh per
annum, while claiming his personal expenses to be Rs. 45,000/- per
month and expenses on his parents to be Rs. 20,000/- per month, totaling
Rs. 65,000/- per month. He has further stated that he is paying an EMI of
Rs. 88,000/- per month towards a loan liability of Rs. 85 lakh (allegedly in
support of his brother and father), without producing any bank statements
showing deduction of the said EMI or any relevant documents in support
of his income and liabilities before the learned Principal Trial Court. The
revisionist states that her counsel argued an application under Section 91
of the Cr.P.C. dated 09.09.2024, seeking production of documents to
ascertain the actual income of the Respondent. However, the learned
Principal Trial Court, without passing any order under Section 91 of the
Cr.P.C., directed the revisionist to file an affidavit of assets and liabilities.
Thereafter, the revisionist filed her affidavit stating her monthly expenses
to be Rs. 80,000/- for herself and Rs. 50,000/- for her chronically ill son,
including medical expenses incurred for treatment from Bilaspur to
Chennai. The learned Principal Judge of the Family Court, vide order
dated 09.09.2024, awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per
month to the revisionist and Rs. 3,000/- per month to her chronically ill
son, totaling Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of the order, without
proper application of mind. Whereas, the evidence on record, including
medical liabilities, shows expenses exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/- at the time
of filing of the application, which have been borne by her parents and
relatives till date. The revisionist states that she was sent to her parental
home on 18.01.2021 under the pretext of delivery, with a mala fide
intention and as part of a conspiracy to fulfill dowry demands, and since
then she has been residing with her parents and is entirely dependent
upon them. The maintenance awarded, i.e., Rs. 7,000/- per month to the
revisionist and Rs. 3,000/- per month to her chronically ill son, is grossly
inadequate for their sustenance. The respondent, however, is working
and running a Chartered Accountant firm at Jhansi, Delhi, and Noida, and
is earning more than Rs. 3,50,000/- per month. However, the learned
Principal Judge failed to consider that the Respondent is deliberately
concealing his actual income and has not produced the necessary
documents as sought by the revisionist. It is submitted that the revisionist
has claimed maintenance @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per month for herself and her
sick son, including necessary medical expenses. The revisionist,
therefore approaches this Hon'ble Court to modify the impugned
award/order dated 09.09.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the learned Trial Court failed to
follow the settled principles while fixing the quantum of maintenance and
did not properly consider the facts and evidence on record. The learned
Trial Court failed to consider the object and intent of Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
which is to provide social justice by ensuring reasonable maintenance, as
settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The learned Trial Court failed to
consider the financial capacity of the respondent, who, as per his own
affidavit, incurs expenses of Rs. 65,000/- per month on himself and his
parents, apart from paying EMI of Rs. 88,000/- per month. The learned
Trial Court failed to ascertain the actual income, reasonable personal
expenses, and liabilities of the respondent, and did not direct production
of relevant documents as prayed for by the revisionist under Section 91
Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court failed to determine an appropriate
quantum of maintenance for the revisionist and her chronically ill son,
despite evidence of medical expenses exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/- on
record. The learned Trial Court failed to consider the standard of living of
the respondent, prevailing inflation, cost of living, and the medical
expenses of the minor child, as per settled law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court. The learned Trial Court failed to consider that the living
expenses of the minor child include food, clothing, residence, education,
and medical treatment, as per prevailing circumstances. The learned Trial
Court failed to consider the affidavit of the Revisionist stating that she has
no independent income and is unable to maintain herself in accordance
with the standard of living enjoyed in her matrimonial home. The learned
Trial Court failed to appreciate that maintenance ought to be granted from
the date of application to protect the deserted wife and minor sick child
from destitution and vagrancy. The revisionist has a bona fide
apprehension that the respondent may transfer or alienate his movable
and immovable properties, including assets/shares located at Hajipur
(Bihar), Jhansi, and Noida (U.P.), in the names of his parents, brothers,
or relatives, to conceal his actual income from the Court. The present
petition has been filed within limitation, as the certified copy of the
impugned order along with necessary documents was received on
19.09.2024. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the
impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, is bad in law, having been passed without proper
appreciation of facts and evidence on record. It is therefore prayed that
the said order be modified and the quantum of maintenance be suitably
enhanced.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the judgment of
the trial Court and records of the trial Court.
7. 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, and
considering the conditions of the both the parties, the learned 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.
8. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused.
9. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the
concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under
Section 125 of CrPC, preferably within a period of three months from
today, if there is no any legal impediment.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Preeti
