Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37754 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 31 of 2025 1. Smt. Pinky Patil W/o Tileshwar Patil Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Samouli, P.S. Jhilmilli, Tehsil Bhayathan, Distt. Surajpur Chhattisgarh 2. Bhumika Patil D/o Tileshwar Patil Aged About 9 Years Through Natural
Legal Reasoning
Guardian Smt. Pinky Patil, W/o Tileshwar Patil R/o Village Samouli, P.S. Jhilmilli, Tehsil Bhayathan, Distt. Surajpur Chhattisgarh 3. Anuj Patil S/o Tileshwar Patil Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Smt. Pinky Patil, W/o Tileshwar Patil R/o Village Samouli, P.S. Jhilmilli, Tehsil Bhayathan, Distt. Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Tileshwar Patil S/o Ramlal Patil Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Rajpur, P.S. And Tehsil Rajpur, Distt. Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate. For Respondent : None ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.01 14:40:06 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.07.2025 Order on Board 1. 2. 3. Heard Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this revision petition when the matter is called for hearing today. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following 2 prayer: “1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to enhance the maintenance for Rs. 5000/- for applicant No.2 and 5000/- for the applicant No. 03 and also grant maintenance for the applicant No. 01 for Rs. 5000/- 2. Any other relief this Hon’ble High Court deems fit.” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicants have filed an application for maintenance against the respondent. As per the application, applicant No.1 submitted that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that their marriage was solemnized in the year 2013. Thereafter, they were blessed with two children. The respondent is working as a security guard at Sahkari Bank, Rajpur, and resides in Rajpur, while occasionally visiting Samouli, where the applicant resides. She further submitted that in the year 2023, she received a call from a woman who claimed to have an illicit relationship with the respondent. Upon hearing this, applicant No.1 went to Rajpur with her sister, where she saw her husband living with one lady, namely Manju Rao, as husband and wife. Consequently, a dispute arose between applicant No.1 and the respondent. The respondent later apologized for his conduct, and thereafter, applicant No.1 returned to her village, Samouli. The applicant further submitted that she is currently residing in Samouli with her two minor children. For a long time, the respondent has not been providing for their basic needs such as food, clothing, and other essentials. As a result, the applicant is facing severe hardship. The children are currently studying in Classes 6 and 3, and the applicant, being a housewife, is unable to maintain herself and her children. When she tried to lodge a complaint at the local police 3 station, the police advised her to approach the Court. She further stated that the respondent is earning Rs. 25,000/- per month as a security guard and also owns 16 acres of agricultural land, from which he earns approximately Rs. 4,00,000 annually. Therefore, she prayed for a maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000 per month. 5. The respondent filed his written statement denying all the averments made by the applicants. He alleged that applicant No.1 has an illicit relationship with one Dhanjai Gupta and that she is residing with him along with the children. He further submitted that he made several attempts to bring her back, but the applicant refused to return. He stated that he works as a security guard and supports his parents and other family members with his income. 6. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court passed an order granting maintenance of Rs. 1,500 each to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 but did not grant any maintenance to applicant No.1. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 12/12/2024 (Annexure A-1) is bad in law and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court has completely failed to consider the fact that applicant No.1 is a helpless woman with no source of income, and she also bears the responsibility of raising two school-going children. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is a healthy man, working as a security guard in a bank, and earning Rs. 25,000/- per months. Learned Family Court has awarded only Rs. 1,500 each to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 and has not granted even a single penny to applicant No.1, which is extremely harsh. With a total of just Rs. 3,000, the applicants are unable to meet their basic needs such as food, clothing, education, and shelter. He also submits that learned 4 Trial Court failed to consider that the respondent belongs to a financially well-off family, owns agricultural land, earns Rs. 25,000/- per month as salary, and also engages in agricultural activities from which he earns approximately Rs. 4,00,000/- per year. Hence, he is fully capable of maintaining the entire family. As per the settled law, the respondent is legally bound to maintain the applicants. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants and has awarded Rs. 1,500/- each to applicants No. 2 and 3, whereas the application for grant of maintenance to applicant No. 1 was rejected on the ground that applicant No. 1 is residing separately from the respondent without sufÏcient cause, 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. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice