Balod, Chhattisgarh v. Bhimesh Kumar Deshmukh S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34946 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 23 of 2021 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Bhimesh Deshmukh Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Sankara, Post Jagannathpur, Police Station And Tehsil Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Bhimesh Kumar Deshmukh S/o Jageshwar Deshmukh Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Sankara, Post Jagannathpur, Police Station And Tehsil Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ruhul Ameen Memon, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 08.12.2020 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.41/2015, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and 2 directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an admitted fact that the applicant and respondent are Hindus, and their marriage was solemnized on May 12, 1999, as per the customs and rites of their community in Village Sankara, Post Jagannathpur, Police Station and Tehsil Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. Therefore, both are husband and wife, and from their marital life, they have three sons: Gajendra Kumar (16 years old), Bhavendra Kumar (13 years old), and Atul Kumar (11 years old). Notably, the applicant filed an application to amend the petition, seeking to delete the names of applicants 2 to 4, which was allowed, and now only the applicant, Shanti Bai, remains a party to the case. The applicant's case is that after 3-4 years of their marriage, the respondent's behavior towards her changed, and he started leveling false allegations about her character, stating that she had illicit relations with her brother-in-law and son- in-law. Whenever she would talk to her relatives from her parental home, the respondent would beat her, abuse her, and threaten to marry another woman. Despite her relatives' intervention and the non-applicant's apology, he continued to physically and mentally harass her. Further, the applicant alleges that on June 20, 2014, the respondent married Lekha Deshmukh, daughter of Kuleshwar Deshmukh, resident of Village Sankara, Post Jagannathpur, Police Station and Tehsil Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, 3 without her consent. Currently, the respondent is living with Lekha Deshmukh as husband and wife in Pandepara, Balod, in a rented house. The applicant lodged a report against the respondent at Police Station Balod on March 1, 2015, under sections 498A and 323 of the IPC, which is still pending. Additionally, on May 7, 2015, the respondent threw the applicant out of the house along with their children, threatening her to withdraw the complaint, failing which he would kill her. The applicant is currently residing in Village Sankara with her children, where the non-applicant often locks her house. The applicant has no source of income and is struggling to maintain herself and her children. She has requested maintenance from the respondent, citing that he has a sufficient income from 5 acres of agricultural land and two fair price shops in Village Sankara and Jagannathpur, earning around Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from agriculture and Rs.30,000-35,000/- from the shops. Despite having a sufficient income, the respondent has neglected his legal obligation to maintain the applicant. Therefore, the applicant seeks maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the respondent for her residence and livelihood. Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply and denied the allegations as alleged by the applicant. The Family Court after appreciating the materials and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 4 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the fact that respondent is residing with another women, therefore, the applicant is liable to get proper and sufficient maintenance from the applicant. He further submits that the Family Court further failed to consider the fact that respondent is earning person and has sufficient means of earning, but the Family Court awarded only Rs.2,000/- per month as monthly maintenance, which is on lower side. He also submits that the Family Court has not discussed the source of income of the applicant and as per today’s life style. 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 learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant towards maintenance observing Based on the documents and evidence presented by the applicant, the Family Court found that applicant has sufficient grounds to live separately from the respondent. The evidence also 5 suggests that the applicant is unable to maintain herself, and as her husband, the respondent is morally and legally obligated to provide for her maintenance. Regarding the maintenance amount, the applicant claims that the respondent earns approximately Rs.3,35,000/-. However, no conclusive evidence or documents have been presented to support the claim. The respondent on the other hand, states that he works as a laborer in the village. Considering the nature of the respondent's work and the current circumstances of the case, the Family Court has granted maintenance as aforementioned. 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil