Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur v. Ramayan Prasad Kaushik S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:25122 NAFR GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.06.23 14:46:51 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 627 of 2017 Smt. Pushpa Kaushik W/o Ramayan Prasad Kaushik, Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Bijli Office, Tifra, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur ... Applicant versus Ramayan Prasad Kaushik S/o Late Kriparam Kaushik, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kesla, Police Station Bilha District Bilaspur ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
be made basis for denying maintenance to her. It is settled law that a wife is entitled to have maintenance from her husband as 4 per his status, which admittedly is much higher than that of the applicant in the present case. He would submit that finding recorded by the Court below that existence of talaknama has not been denied by the applicant is an erroneous finding in the light of application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by her in which she has categorical denied execution of said document by her. He would submit that the court below has to take into consideration that the respondent has utterly failed to prove his pleadings by leading any cogent and reliable evidence that the applicant has given divorce to him and that she is having enough amount of earning or sources of income to maintain herself. Therefore, the order of court below denying maintenance is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that the respondent has produced a "Talaknama" (Exhibit D-1), which bears the 5 signatures/thumb impressions of both parties, although the applicant has not denied signing the document. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the respondent has neglected or refused to maintain the applicant, instead, it appears that the applicant has chosen to live separately from the respondent, based on the oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove her case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 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 a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information and follow up action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri
Arguments
: Shri D.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. Heard Shri D.C. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Punit Rupare, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10/03/2017 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) in M.J.C. No.39/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant for grant 2 of maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant herein has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court below seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from the respondent herein stating therein that the marriage between the parties was solemnized about 25-26 years back and out of their wedlock, two female child namely Miss Chandni & Miss Lata, aged about 10 & 7 years respectively were born. It is further case of the applicant that after the birth of daughters, the respondent started treating the applicant with cruelty and even stopped giving money for day-to-day expenses. The applicant was tolerating the behaviour of respondent with a hope that one day he will bring change in his behaviour, however, instead of bringing change in his attitude, he became more aggressive. It has further been mentioned that about nine months prior to the filing of maintenance application, the respondent threw her from the matrimonial home and since then she is residing in a rental accommodation. It has also been mentioned that after ousting the applicant, the respondent has kept one lady as his wife. It is further stated that the applicant had no independent source of income and is, therefore, unable to maintain herself, whereas the respondent is in government job of Food Corporation of India and getting salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The respondent has about 2 acres of land in village Kesla and by 3 which he is earning Rs.2 Lac per annum. On all the aforesaid grounds, the applicant has claimed an amount of Rs.5,000/- as monthly maintenance from the respondent. On filing such application, notice has been issued to the respondent herein and he has appeared before the Court below and filed his reply denying all the averments made by the applicant in her application. However, the respondent has admitted that he is working in the Food Corporation of India, Bilha and that he has two acres of land. Ultimately, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the application for grant of monthly maintenance. The learned Court below after hearing the parties in the matter, by the impugned order though held that the respondent is competent to maintain the applicant herein but recorded a finding that it is the applicant who herself is living separately from the respondent and that she failed to prove that she is unable to maintain herself and thus dismissed the application for grant of maintenance vide impugned order. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court below ought to have seen that the applicant has no permanent source of income for her livelihood whereas the respondent is having a permanent job in the Food Corporation of India, Bilha and is getting handsome salary and even if it is accepted that the applicant by working as labour is earning certain amount, it cannot