Champa, Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Indu Lal W
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27746 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 29 of 2024 Madhukar Lal S/o Chandralal Aged About 33 Years R/o Office Colony, Back Side Of Girls School, Sakti, Tahsil- Sakti, Ps- Sakti,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Indu Lal W/o Madhukar Lal Aged About 33 Years R/o Mourya Ka Makan, Kargi Chowk, Thana Civil Lines, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, CG. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kashish Saluja, Advocate. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /06/2025 1. 2. Heard Mr. Kashish Saluja, learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 02.12.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Bilaspur District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.917/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent were married in 2009 in Bilaspur and lived together as husband and wife until 2015. During their marital life, the respondent became pregnant twice, in 2010 and 2013. However, she was subjected to economic, physical, and mental exploitation by the applicant and his family members. The situation worsened when the respondent discovered that the applicant was engaged to a woman named Rubina Rai from village Kotmi Marwahi and planned to marry her. The respondent intervened, and the marriage was called off, but she faced abuse and threats from all parties involved. She reported the incident to the Main Diocese of Chhattisgarh in Raipur, the Sakti Church, and the Superintendent of Police in Bilaspur, leading to a criminal case against the respondent. As a result, the applicant and his family members have refused to let the respondent live with them or communicate with her. Despite the physical abuse, the respondent wishes to continue her life with the applicant and has not taken further action. Due to the applicant’s refusal to live with her, the respondent is forced to depend on others for support. The applicant’s actions have led to the respondent’s mental distress, rendering her unable to work or earn a living. The applicant, being physically fit, works at the C.G. Institute of Nursing College, runs a private contracting business, and earns approximately 3 Rs.50,000/- per month from various sources, including leasing his agricultural land in Sakti. The respondent requests a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.25,000 from the applicant in the application under Section 125 of CrPC before the Family Court, thereafter, the Family Court after considering facts and circumstance of the case has granted maintenance as aforementioned. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court failed to appreciate several key facts. Firstly, the respondent did not provide any proof of their marriage, and instead, lodged an FIR against the applicant under Section 376 of the CrPC, which resulted in his acquittal. This act, according to the applicant, shows that the respondent is trying to implicate him for her own motives. He further submits that applicant also points out that the parties belong to different religions, and without conversion, the church could not have allowed their marriage or issued a marriage certificate. Moreover, no regular marriage was performed in their social circle, which means the respondent is not entitled to maintenance. He also submits that the respondent provided false information about her name and profession during her statement. Additionally, the respondent's application despite her failure to submit an affidavit regarding her financial condition, as required by the Supreme Court's guidelines in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha. The Court also failed to appreciate the documents 4 submitted by the applicant regarding the respondent's income, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that in compliance with the directions issued by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and others (Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020) regarding maintenance, the respondent has not submitted an affidavit disclosing her assets and liabilities. The respondent has stated in her affidavit that the applicant is physically fit and works at C.G. Institute of Nursing College, runs a private contracting business, and earns approximately Rs.50,000 per month from various sources, including leasing his agricultural land in Sakti. However, no documents have been produced to prove the applicant’s income. The applicant has filed an affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities, but has stated that the details of income are not applicable. The applicant has also claimed that the respondent earns Rs.25,000/- per month from her job, but no documents have been produced to prove the respondent’s income. After considering facts and circumstance of the case, the Family Court came to the conclusion that respondent / wife has 5 been able to prove her case under Section 125 of CrPC. Therefore, it is determined that the applicant / husband has a social obligation/duty towards the respondent / wife. Further considering the standard of living and social status of both parties, as well as the applicant’s earning capacity, as demonstrated by the available evidence, respondent / wife is entitled for grant of maintenance. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sd/- Rajshekhar