Dismissed¶¶34

Ramesh Kukreja v. Smt. Soumya Kukreja

Chhattisgarh HC16 Jan 2025CRR/78/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC upheld on revision; revision under Section 19(4) Family Courts Act 1984 dismissed; Family Court Raipur Case No.539/2024 order dated 07.12.2024; maintenance Rs.7,000/- per month (wife Rs.4,000/-, minor daughter Rs.3,000/-); wife without income, residing at parental home with child; no illegality or infirmity in interim maintenance order; direction to expedite trial; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; Justice Arvind Kumar Verma; Ramesh Kukreja v. Soumya Kukreja and Mahi Kukreja.

What did the court decide?

None to the applicant; criminal revision dismissed and disposed of, interim maintenance order dated 07.12.2024 (Rs.7,000/- per month) stands; trial Court directed to expedite the trial. ¶¶34

Ramesh Kukreja Vs Smt. Soumya Kukreja — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the applicant; criminal revision dismissed and disposed of, interim maintenance order dated 07.12.2024 (Rs.7,000/- per month) stands; trial Court directed to expedite the trial.

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month granted by the Family Court, Raipur (order dated 07.12.2024) to the respondents under Section 125 CrPC was illegal, erroneous or arbitrary and liable to be set aside or reduced, as urged by the applicant in this revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

¶¶25

Court's answer

Respondent No.1/wife has no source of income, is residing in her parental home with her minor daughter (respondent No.2) and is struggling to support herself; hence the Family Court granted interim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, payable by the applicant as husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

The learned Family Court has rightly determined the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondents.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

In the opinion of this Court, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 07.12.2024.ratio¶¶30
There is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.12.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Family Court, Raipur (C.G.).ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR No. 78 of 2025, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (single Bench, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, order dated 17/01/2025): Criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by husband Ramesh Kukreja against the interim maintenance order dated 07.12.2024 of the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Case No.539/2024, awarding Rs.7,000/- per month (Rs.4,000/- to wife/respondent No.1 Soumya Kukreja; Rs.3,000/- to minor daughter/respondent No.2 Mahi Kukreja) under Section 125 CrPC. Held: respondent No.1 has no source of income, resides at her parental home with the minor child and is struggling to support herself; the Family Court rightly determined the amount and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order; the revision being devoid of merit is dismissed and disposed of; the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

2025:CGHC:3084

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 78 of 2025

¶6

Ramesh Kukreja S/o Ishwar Das Kukreja Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 18, Happy Home, Kukreja Farms House Mahavir Nagar, P.S. New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Smt. Soumya Kukreja W/o Ramesh Kukreja Aged About 29 Years,

¶10

2 - Mahi Kukreja D/o Ramesh Kukreja Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Soumya Kukreja,

¶11

Both are R/o C/o Daulatram Lakhwani Deepak Colony, P.S. New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board

¶15

17/01/2025

¶16

Heard.

¶17

This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Case

¶18

¶19

No.539/2024, whereby the Family Court has granted interim maintenance total amount of Rs.7,000/- per month in which Rs.4,000/for respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- for respondent No.2, hence this revision is being filed on the following facts.

¶20

Brief facts of this case are that on 16.02.2014, the applicant had solemnized marriage along with respondent no. 1 according to Hindu Custom since then the respondent no. 1 was living with applicant as wife at her matrimonial house and on their wedlock, the respondent no. 2 born on 24.02.2016. As per allegation made by the respondent no. 1 is that after some time of marriage, the applicant and his family members were harassing and torturing in the name of less than dowry and has also committed marpeet with the respondent no. 1 by using filthy language and the applicant had also demanded dowry with cruel from the respondent no. 1, and hence the respondent no. 1 left at her matrimonial house and residing with her daughter/respondent no. 2 at her parental house. The respondent no. 1 has no any source of income to survival and applicant is working as labour and hence the respondents had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance with application for seeking interim maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month against the applicant.

¶21

After issuing the notice to the applicant, the applicant has filed reply and denied the all averment pleaded in the application and executed affidavit and it is stated that the respondent no. 1 has quarreled with

¶22

¶23

the applicant without any reasons and respondent has left at her matrimonial house from her own will

¶24

The learned Family Court passed the order dated 07.12.2024, whereby allowed the interim maintenance application of the respondents and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 7000/- per month (Rs. 4,000/- for respondent no. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- for respondent no. 2). Hence, this revision.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order passed by learned the Family Court is completely illegal, erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. He further contended that the learned Family Court has failed to see that the applicant has never acted with the respondent and the applicant has always try to manage his matrimonial life, but the respondent no. 1 has refused to live with applicant together and hence the interim maintenance is liable to be set-aside and it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow criminal revision and set- áside impugned order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Principle Judge, Family Court Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh or granted interim maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month may be reduced, in the interest of justice.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶27

¶28

Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/- per month (Rs.4,000/- for respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- to respondent No.2).

¶29

From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that respondent No.1/wife has no source of income, she is residing in her parental home with her minor daughter/respondent No.2 and she is struggling to support herself, hence, the Family Court granted the interim maintenance to the non-applicants/respondents under Section 125 of CrPC, applicant is husband of the respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2, has to pay the said interim maintenance amount.

¶30

Further, on perusal of the order under challenge, it is evident that the learned Family Court has discussed the factors while arriving at a finding is just and proper. From perusal of the same, it is evident that the applicant and respondent were married according to their customs and it is alleged that due to the harassment by the applicant, respondent had to reside separately. Thereafter, she is facing great hardships and is unable to maintain herself. The respondents have been living separately from the applicant after they were deserted and hence, the learned Family Court has rightly determined the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondents, therefore, in the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality and

¶31

¶32

infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.12.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Family Court, Raipur (C.G.).

¶33