Durg, Chhattisgarh v. Kshitij Sao S
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:45858 NAFR CRR No. 98 of 2020 Smt. Seema Sao W/o Kshitij Sao Aged About 28 Years R/o - C/o Chhagan Lal Sahu, R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Kshitij Sao S/o Balgovind Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Permanent Address - Qur. No. 7/c, Road No. N.P.A. Sector-5, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Junior Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Company Limited Maryadit, Kotba, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision petition and set aside the 2 judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1256/2018, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant (wife) and non-applicant (husband) were married on 19.04.2017 in District Durg, Chhattisgarh, as per Hindu customs. After marriage, the wife went to her matrimonial home at Sector-5, Bhilai. The husband is employed as a Junior Engineer in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board at Kotba, District Jashpur. After marriage, she lived as a dutiful wife and daughter-in-law, but was harassed by her husband and in-laws for insufÏcient dowry. She was subjected to abuse, physical assault, and threats. At Kotba (husband’s posting), she was treated like a prisoner and not allowed to talk to neighbors. The husband threatened her with divorce if dowry demands were not met and was instigated by his family to marry another woman. On 01.04.2018, her parents were called on the pretext of exam preparation and she was expelled from her matrimonial home with threats to her life. When her father questioned, dowry was demanded again. Despite requests, she was not allowed to return. Since 01.04.2018, she has been living with her ailing father at her parental home. The husband earns around ₹65,000 per month as a Junior Engineer and has no major responsibilities. She seeks ₹25,000/- per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC as well as also filed an interim maintenance and after due consideration, the learned Family Court passed an order dated 3 18.03.2019 whereby granted 5000/- per month as interim maintenance in favour of wife. 4. After service of notice, the non-applicant has filed the reply and the learned Family Court has framed three issues and directed the parties to lead their evidence and accordingly, the applicant and the non-applicant have submitted their evidence of the aforesaid issues. 5. The learned Family Court has fixed the case for final argument on 16.12.2019 and then vide order dated 19.12.2019 finally heard the arguments and fixed the case for judgment dated 2.1.2020 and thereafter fixed the date on 8.1.2020 for judgment and behind the back of the applicant, later on, without any knowledge of the applicant framed additional issue No.4 and passed the order dated 8.1.2020 by which dismissed the application for grant of maintenance on the ground of additional issue which has been framed behind the back of the applicant though that has been reflected from back side of the order-sheet dated 2.1.2020 and not only dismissed the application for grant of maintenance, but also held that there is cruelty on the part of the applicant and she willingly left the house of her husband though same is contrary to the material available on record. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has acted with material irregularities and totally overlooked the relevant provisions of law. The non-applicant having sufÏcient means to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself, but the learned Family Court not at all considered the oral and documentary 4 evidence of the applicant and kin to dismiss the application under Section 125 of the CrPC in such a manner. He further submits that the finding of the learned Family Court is erroneous and contrary to the evidence available on record. The applicant of her evidence as well as evidence of her witnesses duly proved that she is unable to maintain herself and her husband having sufÏcient means to maintain his wife and the non-applicant has committed cruelty with his wife, but the learned Family Court has wrongly exercised the power vested upon it and decided the case against the applicant. The applicant by documentary evidence also proved per month salary of her husband and cruelty whatsoever her husband has committed with her and she made all possible efforts to join the company of her husband but her husband has categorically stated that he is not interested to keep his wife with him. He further submits that the finding of the Family Court is erroneous and contrary to the settled principle of law. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that during their honeymoon in Bangkok, where they stayed for 6–7 days, no physical relationship was established between them. The non-applicant could not consummate the marriage as the applicant showed no interest and failed to fulfill her marital obligations. Therefore, through his advocate, the non-applicant issued a notice to the applicant for restitution of conjugal rights, but even after receipt of the notice, she did not resume cohabitation with 5 him. Instead, she filed a case against the non-applicant under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, in which the non-applicant was subsequently acquitted. It is further submitted that due to such circumstances, the non-applicant was constrained to file a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He asserts that he never expelled the applicant from the matrimonial home, nor was there any quarrel or physical assault between them. Consequently, the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has rightly passed the impugned order, which calls for no interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Considering the evidence and circumstances presented in this case, the learned Family Court concerned has rightly concluded that the applicant failed to prove essential elements necessary to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and further the record reveals that the applicant had voluntarily gone to her parental home. In the absence of such proof, the applicant cannot be held entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant. The Family Court, by carefully evaluating the pleadings and evidence, has taken a lawful and justified decision by dismissing the maintenance claim. 10. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any 6 ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal