GAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Chhattisgarh v. Dharam Singh Sahani S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36884 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 112 of 2020 Smt. Padma Sahani W/o Shri Dharamsingh Sahani, Aged About 32 Years Cast Bhatra, R/o Vill. Kawadawand, P.S. Bakawand, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh)................Applicant, District : Bastar (Jagdalpur), AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Dharam Singh Sahani S/o Ghasiram Sahani Aged About 48 Years Cast Bhatra, Assistant Teacher, R/o Vill. Ganjhaguda Para, Madpal, P.S. Nagarnar,
Legal Reasoning
Disrict Bastar Chhattisgarh..................Non-Applicant, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bastar Place - Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case 2 No.56/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent got married about 25 years ago. They have two sons and two daughters from their marital relationship. The respondent's behavior towards the applicant was good until the birth of their fourth child. However, about seven years ago, the respondent started physically assaulting the applicant without any reason, and the applicant filed a report about four months ago. When the respondent received a copy of the report from the police station, he assaulted the applicant. Due to the respondent's cruel behavior, the applicant could not tolerate it and left her children to save her life and came to her parents' house at Kawadawand. During this time, the respondent did not take care of the applicant and the children, nor did he provide any maintenance amount. The respondent is an Assistant Teacher and earns a salary of approximately Rs. 30,000/-. In addition to this, the respondent has agricultural land from which he earns a sufficient income. The applicant does not work and is entirely dependent on her parents, struggling to maintain herself and her children. The respondent has kept another woman as his mistress about a month ago and is not fulfilling his duties towards the applicant. The applicant reported this matter to the police station on November 7, 2017, and was advised to approach the court due to the matrimonial dispute. Therefore, the applicant has requested 3 that the respondent be directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to her and Rs. 3,000/- each to the four children as maintenance. Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the applicant. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has acknowledged in paragraph 9 of the order that the applicant is unable to maintain herself due to a lack of income source. However, the Learned Family Court has committed a serious error by holding that since the applicant is living separately without a cogent reason, she is not entitled to maintenance. In contrast, the applicant has presented documentary and oral evidence to demonstrate that the respondent's behavior towards her has been cruel, which has not been rebutted by the respondent. This evidence should have been given due consideration by the learned Family Court while determining the applicant’s entitlement to maintenance. He further submits that the learned Family Court has committed a serious error by holding that the petitioner is living in adultery based on the oral testimony of their son, Chaman Singh Sahani (N.A.W.-2), and Manishanker Mandal (N.A.W.-3). The learned Family Court should have considered that a bare perusal of their depositions reveals that N.A.W.-2 Chaman Singh appears to be a tutored 4 witness, and N.A.W.-3 appears to be a hearsay witness, rendering their testimonies unreliable. He also submits that the Learned Family Court should have also considered that the respondent has admitted to having another child with a woman who is living with him without marriage, which substantiates the allegations made by the applicant against the respondent. This admission supports the applicant’s claims and should have been given due weightage by the learned Family Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that the applicant has stated in her Court testimony that her marriage with the respondent took place in 1994 in village Kawadawand, and that four children were born from their marital life. The respondent has also admitted these facts in his pleadings, Court testimony, and written arguments. This establishes that the applicant is the wife of the respondent and that four children were born from their marital life. 5 Furthermore, the respondent has not made any statement in his Court testimony regarding his being able to maintain the applicant, which proves that the applicant is incapable of maintaining herself, whereas as per the statement of the non-applicant, it is evident that four children of both the parties are also presently residing with the non-applicant and the non-applicant has also stated in his judicial statement that the said children are living with him and the responsibility of their maintenance is on him. The applicant has not even added the said four children as parties in her application nor has their statement been made in the court, but since the said children are minors, being incapable of maintaining them is natural and acceptable, but it is also evident that the applicant is maintaining them. 7. The Family Court also observed from the evidence presented in the case, that the applicant is living in adultery, as per the respondent's defense. In such a situation, according to Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant is not entitled to receive maintenance from her husband, the respondent. Moreover, it is not proven that the respondent has neglected to maintain the applicant. The argument presented on behalf of the applicant is that the respondent has kept another woman as his second wife, on the basis of which the applicant is entitled to reside separately and receive maintenance from the respondent. However, the applicant's living in adultery is proven 6 through the evidence presented in the case. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil