Pushpa Dhankar vs Hemant Kumar Dhankar

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

Heard Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant.

The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:

“it is most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that, in the interest of justice, the present revision be allowed and the order dated 24.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court in Criminal Case No. 743/2023 be modified/altered, directing that the revisionist/applicant be granted adequate monthly maintenance from her husband, the respondent/non-applicant.”

Facts of the case are that the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court. The said application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was partly allowed by order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court. The applicant and the respondent were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 15.05.2011 at Village Dhamni, District Bilaspur. From their wedlock, two children were born, namely, a son, Aarav Dhankar, and a daughter, Riya Dhankar, who are presently residing with the respondent. The respondent, under the instigation of his parents, has been abusing the applicant in filthy language, assaulting, and harassing her for the last five years. About 10–15 days prior to filing the application, the respondent and his family members assaulted the applicant and ousted her from the matrimonial house, since when she has been residing at her parental home with her parents. In relation to the said harassment, the applicant lodged a complaint on 22.06.2023 at Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur, against the respondent, but the police, treating it as a matrimonial dispute, submitted a report under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. and advised her to seek remedy before the competent Court. The applicant is a housewife with no source of income. The respondent is employed as a Head Manager at Sangta Limited and receives a monthly salary of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Therefore, the applicant prayed that she be granted a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month as maintenance from the respondent.

In his reply, the respondent admitted his marriage with the applicant and also admitted that they have one son and one daughter, but he denied all other allegations. He contended that the applicant did not take care of him, the respondent, or their children, and that she constantly demanded money. On refusal, she used to quarrel, fight, and abuse. On 12.06.2023, the applicant allegedly left for her parental home without informing him, taking along gold ornaments worth Rs. 6,00,000/- to Rs. 7,00,000/-, the keys of a scooter, an ATM card, and some cash, and further threatened to falsely implicate the respondent and his family members in a dowry harassment case. He further submitted that the applicant, on false and concocted grounds, lodged a report against him. The respondent works at Roongta Mines Limited, where he earns a monthly salary of Rs. 88,362/-. He further contended that the applicant has completed a computer course and also does tailoring and training work from which she earns about Rs. 5,000/- per month. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the applicant’s application.

Upon hearing both parties, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 partly allowed the application filed by the applicant and granted her Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it has been observed that the respondent does not even wish to keep the applicant with him. Therefore, the applicant has sufficient reason to live separately, and since she is not capable of maintaining herself, even then the learned Family Court has assessed the maintenance amount at an extremely low figure. He also submits that the respondent is employed as a Head Manager in Sangta Limited, from which he receives a monthly salary of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Therefore, the learned Family Court ought to have directed payment of Rs. 40,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. However, by not doing so, the Court has committed an error. He also submits that learned Family Court has assessed the maintenance amount of the applicant at an excessively low level, and the order has been passed ignoring the prevailing high cost of living. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable and deserves to be modified. He further submits that the impugned order also deserves to be modified for the reason that the respondent himself admitted that he receives a monthly salary of Rs. 88,362/-. Yet, the learned Family Court has awarded only Rs. 7,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance, which is grossly inadequate. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and therefore, the responsibility of maintaining the applicant lies upon the respondent. However, the learned Family Court, without giving due consideration to this responsibility and ignoring the prevailing inflation, has considered a meagre sum of only Rs. 7,000/- as sufficient for the applicant, which is wholly inadequate. Therefore, it has become absolutely necessary to modify the impugned order.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and awarded maintenance of Rs. 7000/- to the applicant, observing the income, social and economic status of both parties and the current price index, which cannot be said to be on the lower side.

Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.