Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 17.01.2025 Judgment delivered on : 15.04.2025 CRR No. 25 of 2024 Kishore Puri Goswami S/o Chhtrapal Puri Goswami Aged About 36 Years R/o Ramnagar Ward No. 2, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Applicant versus
Legal Reasoning
1 -Smt. Mamta Goswami W/o Kishore Puri Goswami Aged About 29 Years R/o Ramnagar Ward No. 2, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). 2 - Kavy Puri Goswami S/o Shri Kishore Puri Goswami Aged About 7 Years Minor Represented Through Her Mother Mamta Goswami. Both respondents presently resided at R/o Ward No. 8, Raja Colony Ranigao Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.). ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. RS Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma C A V Judgment 1. This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 14.12.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.324/2023 by which learned Family Court, Mungeli, has partly allowed the application of respondent-wife for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondents as maintenance (Rs.8,000/- to respondent No.1/wife & Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.2/son). 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the respondent/wife 2 had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of maintenance stating that her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 10.06.2015 and out of their wedlock, respondent no.2/son was born on 30.07.2016. After few days of marriage, applicant and his family members used to harass her physically & mentally on account of demand of dowry. The applicant used to harass the respondent every day after drinking alcohol, even after the advice of the senior members of the their society, behavior of the applicant has not changed, hence, complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was made by the respondent against the applicant and his family members. The applicant is a Software Engineer, he runs a shop in the name of Repusudan Computer and also selling electronic goods like laptop, mobile, projector etc and thereby earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. Father of the applicant is a teacher who gets a salary of ₹ 70,000/- per month and has also having 05 acres of ancestral agricultural land and two-crop agricultural land at Village-Tamruwa. On this basis, the application has been made, seeking Rs.20,000/- per month from the applicant as maintenance. However, said applicant was allowed in part and applicant was directed to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondents as maintenance (Rs.8,000/- to respondent No.1/wife & Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.2/child). Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court without considering the evidence/material in its true perspective has wrongly allowed the application of respondent/wife filed under section 125 of Cr.PC and directed the applicant to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- per 3 month to the respondents as maintenance. Learned family court has failed to appreciate that applicant is a man of limited means, who earns his livelihood by repairing the Computer. Moreover, there is no movable & immovable property in the name of the applicant. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that respondent no.1 had made a false complaint against the applicant & her family members under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and vide order dated 02.12.2022 (Exhibit NA/5), the applicant & his family members have been acquitted from the charges, hence, it is clear that the allegations made in the maintenance application are baseless & afterthoughts. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent-wife is living separately from the applicant-husband with reasonable cause, hence, finding of the family Court that she is entitled to get any maintenance from applicant is not sustainable. Hence, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and impugned order be set-aside. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the order/judgment of hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Deb Narayan Halder vs. Anushree Halder [2003 (11) SCC 303] and order/decision of this Court in case of Shiv Kumar Yadav vs. Santoshi Yadav [2004 (1) CGLJ 204]. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material/evidence including the impugned order. 5. Section 125 (4) of the Cr.PC reads as under : "(4) No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient 4 reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent" 6. Perusal of records would show that respondent-wife has lodged report under Section 498-A of IPC against the applicant-husband and his family members, however, vide order dated 02.12.2022 (Exhibit NA/5) passed by learned CJM, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.), the applicant & his family members have been granted acquitted from the said charge/offence. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that applicant had preferred an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal right before the Family Court, Kabirdham (C.G.), which was allowed in favour of the applicant-husband on 13.07.2023 holding that without any sufficient reasons, respondent No.1/wife is residing separately from her husband/applicant. 8. Perusal of impugned order dated 14.12.2023 would show that learned Family Court while passing the impugned order has failed to consider the aspect that respondent No.1/wife is under obligation to live with her husband ie applicant in his house except in case of specific misconduct on the part of the husband. 9. In case at hand, despite passing of decree for restitution of conjugal right in favour of the applicant-husband, respondent no.1/wife did not came back to her matrimonial house and without any reasonable reasons/excuse residing separately from her husband ie applicant. Hence, in this situation, this Court of the considered view that respondent No.1/wife is not entitled to get any maintenance from her 5 husband ie applicant. 10.As regard to maintenance towards respondent No.2 (son of applicant aged about 07 years) is concerned, since respondent No.2 is residing with her mother ie respondent No.1, he is entitled to get maintenance amount from his father i.e. applicant. 11.In view of above, revision petition is allowed in part. Impugned order dated 14.12.2023 is set-aside with regard to grant sum of Rs.8,000/- by the Family Court to respondent No.1/wife as maintenance. However, Rs.2,000/- towards respondent No.2 granted by the family Court is hereby maintained. J. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge