Friday, 10, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shyam Prakash Mourya vs Smt. Doly Mourya
2026 Latest Caselaw 469 Chatt

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 469 Chatt
Judgement Date : 13 March, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Shyam Prakash Mourya vs Smt. Doly Mourya on 13 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
                                                   1




                                                                2026:CGHC:12175
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
                                                                             NAFR
Digitally
                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN                                CRR No. 368 of 2026
            Shyam Prakash Mourya S/o Late Babulal Mourya Aged About 42 Years R/o
            Ward No. 41, Patel Mohalla, Torwa, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil And
            District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
                                                                      ... Applicant(s)
                                                 versus
            1 - Smt. Doly Mourya W/o Shyam Prakash Mourya Aged About 35 Years
            R/o Ward No. 41, Patel Mohalla, Torwa, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil And
            District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh


            2 - Ku. Kittu Mourya D/o Shyam Prakash Mourya Aged About 18 Years R/o
            Ward No. 41, Patel Mohalla, Torwa, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil And
            District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh


            3 - Ku. Kanak Mourya D/o Shyam Prakash Mourya Aged About 17 Years
            Through His Mother Guardian Smt. Doly Mourya, R/o Ward No. 41, Patel
            Mohalla, Torwa, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur
            Chhattisgarh
                                                                ---- Non-applicant(s)
            For Applicant           :    Ms. Vijay Laxmi Soni, Advocate.
            For Non-applicants      :    None.


                            Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
                                             Order on Board
            13.03.2026

            1.

By way of this revision petition, the applicant has prayed that this

Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and further be

pleased to set-aside the impugned order of maintenance dated

09.02.2026 (Annexure A-1) in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants, who are the wife

and children of the applicant, filed an application under Section 125 of

the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance to the tune of

Rs.20,000/- per month, stating inter alia that the marriage between the

applicant (hereinafter referred to as the "husband") and the non-

applicant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the "wife") was solemnized

on 18.02.2005 according to Hindu rites and rituals. It was further

alleged by the wife that after the marriage the husband started

doubting her character and subjected her to cruelty and harassment in

connection with demand of dowry. The wife also stated that the

husband is engaged in the business of selling vegetables and earns

about Rs.1000-1200/- per day and due to lack of financial hardship,

she claimed maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month before the learned

Family Court concerned.

3. The applicant/husband filed his reply denying the allegations made by

the wife and stated that the wife herself left the matrimonial home

without any sufficient cause and is presently residing with her parents.

Before the learned Family Court, the wife examined herself as PW-1

and exhibited four documents in support of her case, whereas the

husband examined himself as DW-1.

4. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence available

on record, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated

09.02.2026 (Annexure A-1), whereby awarded maintenance of

Rs.5,000/- per month (Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,500/-

per month each to the children). Being aggrieved by the said order, the

present revision is being preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the impugned

order of maintenance dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed by the

learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled

principles of law and procedure and the same suffers from material

illegality and perversity, therefore it is liable to be set aside. It is further

submitted that the learned Family Court has erred in granting

maintenance in favour of the wife despite the fact that the wife herself

left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause and the

allegations levelled against the husband are false and baseless. It is

also contended that the learned Family Court failed to consider the

fact that the husband had made several attempts to bring the wife

back to the matrimonial home and was willing to keep her with dignity,

however the wife refused to reside with him. Therefore, he prays that

the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is liable to be

set-aside.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the

impugned order and other documents appended with criminal

revision.

7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the non-

applicants had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking

maintenance to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month from the

applicant. After hearing both the parties and considering the material

available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order

dated 09.02.2026, wherein it was observed that the non-applicant

No.1/wife is residing separately from the applicant for sufficient

reasons. Upon appreciation of the evidence and circumstances of

the case, the learned Family Court directed the applicant to pay

maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/wife

and Rs.1,500/- per month each to the non-applicant Nos.2 and 3,

who are minor children, till they attain majority, thereby awarding a

total sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance. Therefore,

keeping in view the social status of the parties, their respective

earning capacity, the number of dependents and the overall facts

and circumstances of the case, the maintenance amount awarded

by the learned Family Court cannot be said to be excessive or

unreasonable and this Court does not find any illegality, perversity or

infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in the present

revision

8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the

applicant and also considering the findings recorded by the learned

Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned

order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called

for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant

interference by this Court.

9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be

and is hereby dismissed.

10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family

Court concerned for necessary information and compliance

- Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

Kunal

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Media

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter