High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.25 17:18:23 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2016 NAFR • Yogesh Dewangan S/o Phuleswar Dewangan, Aged About 26 Years, Occupation Private Job, R/o Village Raksapali, Tahsil - Kharsiya, Civil and Rev. District Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant • Smt. Rita Dewangan W/o Yogesh Dewangan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Raksapali, Tahsil Kharsiya, Raigarh, Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sanjay Agrawal and Mr. Piyush Patnaik, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 24.03.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of counsel appearing for both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. This instant revision has been filed by the non-applicant/husband (applicant herein) under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the Family Court, Raigarh, C.G. in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.F-30/2015, whereby the application filed by the applicant/wife (respondent herein) under Section 125 of 2 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance has been partly allowed directing the non-applicant/husband to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance. 5. As per the earlier application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the facts of the case are that marriage of non-applicant/husband – Yogesh Dewangan was solemnized with applicant/wife – Smt. Rita Dewangan on 19.05.2014 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. It is alleged that after marriage, non-applicant/husband and his family members started quarreling and harassing the applicant/wife on account of demand of dowry. It is further alleged that the husband after consuming liquor used to beat the applicant/wife and used to demand Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. On 01.02.2015 at about 07:30 PM, the non-applicant/husband came to the house in drunken state and on the issue of cooking food, threw the hot water on his applicant/wife and beaten her with hand and fists due to which she has suffered injuries over her head and right finger. Thereafter, she informed about the incident to her family members and on the next day, her brother and other relatives came to the house of the non-applicant/husband and took the applicant/wife with them in her parental house. As the applicant/wife is living separate with her non-applicant/husband with sufficient reasons, she has no sufficient source of earning, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. It is further alleged that non-applicant/husband is in private job and is earning Rs.8,000/- per month and also earns Rs.10,000/- by running business of cosmetics and clothes in holidays. However, after considering the evidence and material available on record, the Family Court partly allowed the 3 application filed by applicant/wife as mentioned in opening para of this order. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.11.2015, the non-applicant/husband has filed this revision. 6. Learned counsels appearing for the non-applicant/husband submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court by awarding Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of the applicant/wife is bad in law. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the material evidence available on record. They further submit that the applicant/wife is living separate with her husband on her own will without sufficient reasons and she is not willing to live with her husband in the village as she wants to live in the city/town. When the non- applicant/husband made effort to bring her wife back to his house, she refused to come back. Thus, the learned Family Court erred in granting maintenance amount in favour of the wife and the same is liable to be set-aside. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant/wife submits that the learned Family Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record has rightly held that the applicant/wife is residing separately with the non-applicant/husband with sufficient reasons. He further submits that the non-applicant/husband used to harass and torture the applicant/wife on account of demand of dowry for which a criminal case has already been registered against the husband under Section 498-A of the IPC. He further submits that the learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order which needs no interference by this Court. 4 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the evidence available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the non-applicant-Yogesh Dewangan (applicant herein) and applicant-Smt. Rita Dewangan (respondent herein) was solemnized on 19.05.2014. Applicant/wife (AW-01) in her statement has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the non-applicant/husband on 19.05.2014 as per Hindu rites and rituals in Raigarh. After the marriage, the non-applicant/husband and her in-laws used to harass and torture her on account of demand of dowry. On 01.02.2015, the non-applicant/husband came to the house in drunken state and on the issue of cooking food, threw the hot water on her, crushed her finger with stone and committed marpit with her due to which she has suffered injuries over her head and other parts of the body. She informed about the incident to her family members and on the next day, her brother and other relatives came to the house of the non-applicant/husband and took her with them to her parental house. Thereafter, she made a written report (Ex.P/2) dated 02.01.2015 against the non-applicant/husband and subsequently, FIR (Ex.P/1) dated 02.02.2015 was lodged against her husband for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. This apart, applicant/wife was medically examined by the doctor and as per her MLC reports (Ex.P/3 and P/4) dated 02.02.2015 and 03.02.2015, injury was found over her left hand, arm and below elbow due to burning by hot water, swelling at index finger and at left side neck. Further, the statement of the applicant/wife was duly corroborated with her MLC 5 reports (Ex.P/3 and P/4) which shows that she was being tortured and harassed by the non-applicant/husband. 10.Though the non-applicant/husband (NAW-1) in his statement has denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that on 02.10.2015, his father and other relatives had gone to the house of the applicant/wife to bring her back but she did not come. This apart, he has stated that at the relevant point of time, he was unemployed and was dependent on his parents. This witness has clearly denied the allegations levelled against him by his wife that he works in Monet Factory and earns Rs.8,000/- per month and also earns Rs.10,000/- from cosmetics and clothes business. However, this witness in his cross-examination has admitted that on the basis of report lodged by applicant/wife, a case is pending against him in the Court of Kharsiya under dowry harassment. Further, at present his wife is residing with her parents and he has not filed any application before any Court for restitution of conjugal rights and on 02.10.2015 also, he has not gone to bring his wife back to his house. 11. Baratram Dewangan (NAW-02) in his statement has stated that he along with the non-applicant/husband, his father and other people of the society had gone to the house of the applicant/wife to bring her back but she did not come with them as the non-applicant/husband used to commit marpit and abuse her. This witness in his cross-examination has admitted that the non-applicant/husband works in Monet Factory and during holidays, he used to sell the cosmetics items. He further admits that the family members of the non-applicant/husband used to do the work of weaving saree. This apart, he admitted that the 6 non-applicant/husband used to earn Rs.6,000-7,000/- per month and also earns income by selling cosmetics items. 12. The learned Family Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment has recorded the finding, particularly on the basis of statement of Baratram Dewangan (NAW-02) who himself has admitted that non-applicant/husband works in Monet Factory and also earns income from selling cosmetics items and thus, he earns Rs.6,000-7,000/- per month. Further, the applicant/wife is the legally wedded wife of the non- applicant/husband and she is residing separately with her husband with sufficient cause as she is being tortured and harassed by her husband which is also evidence from her MLC reports (Ex.P/3 and P/4) and thus, she is entitled to get maintenance amount from her husband which the Family Court has granted Rs.2,000/- per month in her favour. 13. Thus, considering the above evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and does not call for any interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Prakash Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge