Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:24948 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 168 of 2017 Hemant Paraste S/o Manaram Paraste Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Tendudadh , Jhagarkhan, Manendragarh , Tahsil and Police Station Ledri , District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., --- Applicant versus
Legal Reasoning
1. Smt. Godawari @ Chandani Paraste W/o Hemant Paraste Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Bamhnikala , Mohalla Katipara, Tahsil And Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 2. Ku. Kirti Paraste D/o Hemant Paraste Aged About 3 Years Minors Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Godawari, R/o Village Bamhnikala , Mohalla Katipara, Tahsil And Police Station Seepat, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.20 11:32:13 +0530 2 17.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.135/2016, whereby the learned Family Court was rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC of the respondent No. 1/wife and allowed the application with respect to respondent No. 2 and granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2/daughter, Ku. Kirti Paraste. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage of applicant/husband and respondent No. 1/wife took place five years ago as per Hindu customs and rituals by giving dowry and witness to the fire and the entire expenditure of the marriage was also borne. Immediately after the marriage, respondent No.1 was made to leave after a lot of harassment by the parents and relatives of applicant. Respondent No.1 went to her in-laws house where she started living her married life. In the meantime, respondent No.1 became pregnant and after giving birth to a daughter respondent No. 1, the applicant and his family started harassing her even more by saying that firstly you have brought less dowry and on top of that you have given birth to a girl for the first time, who will bear the expenses of her education, writing and marriage. They started harassing her saying this and started pressuring respondent No.1 to bring Rs. 1 lakh and a motorcycle from her maternal home, which was opposed by respondent No. 1. On going there she was beaten and thrown out of the house. After some time on respondent No.1 getting information 3 about second marriage of the applicant she went to her in-laws house where her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law said that now nothing can happen to you because we have together got the applicant married for the second time to a woman named Pinky daughter of Rai Singh resident of Khodhapani Manendragarh police station Lederi district Korea and you can stay here only if you bring Rs. 01 lakh and a motorcycle from your maternal home, otherwise run away from here and after saying this she was beaten and thrown out of the house on 11.04.2014 which was reported by respondent No.1 to the police station where without taking any action she was advised to go to the court on which respondent No.1 lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur and Child Development Project Officer. Respondent No. 1 has no source of income, while the applicant has a four-wheeler Scorpio which he drives himself and earns Rs. 70-80 thousand per month and has a lot of cultivable land and big houses in the village which he gives on rent and earns a lot of income, in spite of this the applicant has neglected the respondents and has not made any arrangements till date due to which the respondents are facing huge problems, in the above situation, the application of the respondent should be accepted and Rs. 15,000/- should be given to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 5,000/- for the maintenance, medicine, treatment and education of respondent No.2, a total of Rs. 20,000/- per month should be taken from the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is bad, illegal perverse and contrary to law and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of 4 the case material available on record. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that applicant is an unemployed person and he is himself dependent on his father for his livelihood. He also submits that the learned Family Court has not considered the fact that the applicant is always ready and willing to keep respondents with. He further submits that the applicant is residing separately with her own will without any reason. He also submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is apparently without application of mind and hence the said order of the Family Court deserves to be set aside of the maintenance amount of the respondents applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the applicant filed this Criminal Revision to set-aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2016 for awarding the maintenance. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant/husband is a 25-30 year old healthy young man, there is no such fact that he is unable to earn any income due to any reason, whereas according to the provisions of Section 125 of the CrPC, a healthy young man who is capable of earning income, even if he does not earn income, is considered capable of maintaining his wife and minor children who are unable to maintain themselves, the same applicant has stated that he is ready to keep the respondents with him and maintain them, the applicant is capable to maintain the respondents, only then he has stated that he is ready to keep the 5 respondents with him and maintain them, thus the applicant is proved to be capable to maintain the respondents. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as original record, to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti