Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:29185 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 75 of 2020 1. Smt. Savina Baghel Wife Of Santosh Baghel Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Khorsi Nala Pangaon, Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village Boda, Chowki Gidhpuri, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., 2. Minor Deepti Baghel D/o Santosh Baghel Aged About 2 Years Minor
Legal Reasoning
Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Savina Baghel Wife Of Santosh Baghel. R/o Village Khorsi Nala Pangaon, Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village Boda, Chowki Gidhpuri, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.02 11:03:07 +0530 ... Applicants versus Santosh Baghel Son Of Kopchand Baghel Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Khorsi Nala Pangaon, Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Pushplata Khalkho, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.10/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant No.1/wife for grant of maintenance and awarded meager amount of Rs. 1,000/- as maintenance to applicant No.2/daughter, hence, this revision. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the applicant No.1 and respondent was solemnized according to Hindu Rituals before 5-6 years of filing the application and after they started living together and out of their wedlock, two boys first Prabhat, who is aged about 4 years and second Ayush, who is aged about 3 years and one daughter Dipti, who is aged about 2 years got birth and she further submitted that after the marriage, the respondent started giving mental and physical torture to her and also used to abuse her for demand of dowry, whereas the applicant No.1 thought that by passage of time, all the things will become normal, but that situation did not change and because of this, she also made written complaint at Police Station, but when the elderly person came forward for compromise between the parties, she again started living with the respondent, but the behavior of respondent with the applicant No.1 did not changed and he kept other woman with him in Bamhanmudi Pangaon and then started giving more torture to the applicant No.1 and on 21-01-2017, 3 the respondent and his family members thrown the applicants out of their house and from that date, the applicants are residing with her parental home and was also denied to meet her sons to whom, the respondent have kept with him. Applicant No.1 also made police complaint against the respondent and his family members at police station and in the counseling the respondent denied to keep the applicants with him and also is not providing any maintenance for them. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court rejecting the claim of maintenance in respect of applicant No.1/wife and of granting meager amount of maintenance to the applicant No.2/daughter, which is bad, erroneous, contrary to the facts and law and the evidences available in this case. The learned family court ought to have considered the fact that out of the cruelty and ill-treatment given by the respondent/husband to the applicant, she is presently compelled to live separately from him. The learned family court ought to have considered the fact that the applicant No.1 is legally wedded wife of respondent that is why he is duty bound to maintain the applicants, because they are living separately from the respondent, because of the cruelty and ill-treatment given by him and his family members. The learned family court ought to have considered the fact that the applicant No.1 have filed the police complaint in respect of cruelty and ill-treatment given by the respondent and his family members and in the counseling also, the respondent has denied to keep the applicant with him. The learned family court ought to have considered the fact that the respondent is not willing to keep the applicants with him and by making false grounds, he is trying to escape from the liability of giving maintenance to the applicants. The 4 learned Family Court ought to have considered the fact that since the applicant No.1 is legally wedded wife of the respondent and the applicant No.2 is his daughter, the respondent is duty bound to give
Decision
maintenance to the applicants. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that applicant No.1/wife is voluntarily living separately from the respondent in her maternal house. While in Section 125 (4) of Cr.P.C. it has been provided that if a wife is voluntarily living separately from her husband without sufficient reason, then she shall not be entitled to receive maintenance amount. In such a situation, the applicant No.1 is not entitled to receive any kind of maintenance amount from the respondent, but the respondent has not presented any evidence regarding maintenance of applicant no. 2, while in his reply he has accepted applicant No. 02 to be his child. Since the age of applicant No. 02 was 02 years on the date of application, then it can be said that she is a minor child. The responsibility and moral obligation of upbringing and maintenance of whom is on the respondent as per the provision given in 125 of Cr.P.C. Then the applicant No. 02 has the right to receive maintenance from the respondent. 6. 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. 5 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti