Para Dimar Para, Durg , Tahsil and District Durg Chhattisgarh v. Durgesh Nandani W
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37942 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 103 of 2022 Jagannath Mahobiya S/o Narayan Prasad Mahobiya Aged About 32 Years R/o Near Bramhan Para Dimar Para, Durg , Tahsil and District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Durgesh Nandani W/o Jagannth Mahobiya Aged About 28 Years R/o Polsai Para, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.04 10:35:18 +0530 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with Order on Board the impugned order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.602/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 2,500/- per months to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Family Court, Durg (C.G.), seeking maintenance from the applicant. She 2 claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of Jagannath Mahobiya, and their marriage was solemnized approximately six years ago as per Hindu customs and rituals. According to the applicant, however, the respondent never accepted him and constantly belittled him, referring to him as a petty pan-gutkha seller, stating that he was beneath her status and that she had married him only under pressure from her parents and brother. The respondent allegedly quarreled frequently, attempted self-immolation, and even consumed poison, leading to hospitalization. The applicant further submitted that he had already been acquitted of charges under Sections 498A and 34A of the IPC. The respondent, in her application, alleged that the applicant subjected her to cruelty and ultimately drove her out of the matrimonial home. She further claimed she is unable to maintain herself, while the applicant earns approximately >50,000 per month from his paan shop and an additional >10,000 from house rent in Dimar Para. She sought >10,000 per month as maintenance. 3. Upon receiving notice, the applicant submitted his reply denying all allegations. He stated that the respondent lived with him only for a few years and voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause about six years ago. Despite his efforts to bring her back, she refused to return. He further contended that she never fulfilled her marital responsibilities and chose to leave for her own independence. The applicant added that he earns only >100–>200 per day from a small paan cart, which barely covers his basic household expenses. He therefore argued that the respondent is not entitled to maintenance. After hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record, the learned Family Court, Durg, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay >2,500 per month as maintenance to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned 3 order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.), is bad in law, perverse, illegal, and contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. Hence, it deserves to be set aside. The respondent has been residing separately without any justifiable or sufficient reason. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent voluntarily left her matrimonial home and has been residing at her parental house for the past five years. Therefore, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. The applicant is earning a modest daily income of >100– >200 from a small paan cart, which is barely sufficient to meet his own household expenses. Despite this, the learned Family Court erred in granting maintenance without framing a proper issue regarding the
Decision
applicant's financial capacity. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the applicant’s reply and misinterpreted the facts presented by the non- applicant. The grounds stated by the respondent for filing the maintenance application were inconsistent and unreliable, and thus, the order passed is not in accordance with law or facts. The court also erred in the determination of facts and wrongly presumed the applicant’s capacity to pay alimony, without proper basis. The conclusions drawn are perverse, contrary to the legal provisions, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Furthermore, the applicant's actual means of livelihood were not properly adjudicated, and the order passed imposes an unjust financial burden on him, contrary to the intent and spirit of the provisions governing maintenance. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the 4 submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.602/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 2,500/- per months to the respondent, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 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. Chief Justice Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) 6. 7. 8. 9. Preeti