Deepak Kumar Ratde S/o Shyam Ratde Aged About 30 Years R/o Kuthraud, Tehsil And v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:5799 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 137 of 2025 Deepak Kumar Ratde S/o Shyam Ratde Aged About 30 Years R/o Kuthraud, Tehsil And P.S. Suhela District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ...Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Deepika Ratde W/o Deepak Kumar Ratde Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kukrachunda, P.O. Mohbhatta, P.S. Hathband, Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Minor Riya Ratde D/o Deepak Kumar Ratde Aged About 8 Years (Through Natural Guardian Respondent No. 1 Smt. Deepika Ratde) R/o Village Kukrachunda, P.O. Mohbhatta, (C.G.) District P.S. Balodabazar- Bhatapara Hathband, Simga, Tehsil
Legal Reasoning
3 - Minor Sneha Ratde D/o Deepak Kumar Ratde (Through Natural Guardian Respondent No. 1 Smt. Deepika Ratde) R/o Village Kukrachunda, P.O. Mohbhatta, P.S. Hathband, Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant For Respondents : : Mr. Gajanand Ratre, Advocate None Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 31/01/2025 1. Heard on IA No. 02/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision. On due consideration and for the reasons assigned therein, I am inclined to allow the same. Delay of 57 days is hereby allowed. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the applicant, heard finally. 2 3. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Learned Judge Family Court, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) in MCRC No. 28/2024, whereby the learned court has allowed the application filed by the respondent no. 1 for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 4. The case in nutshell is that Respondent no. 1 who is the legally wedded wife of the present petitioner. Out of this wedlock two children were born (respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3). Respondent no. 1/wife of the petitioner has alleged that the petitioner along with his father and other family member, started harassing her soon after the marriage just for the reason that they received less dowry in front of the guests. Respondent no. 1 also claimed that the petitioner subjected her to harassment for not receiving the bike and gold chain and due to alleged low quality of the items received as dowry, Respondent no. 1 stated that she faced humiliation and mental distress for bringing a lesser dowry. As a result, she spent her first night in the matrimonial home. Currently she is not residing with her husband. Thereafter respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for maintenance claiming Rs. 20,000/- per month. 5. On appreciation of the findings placed before the concerned Trial Court, the court partly allowed the maintenance application of the respondents by directing the present applicant to pay the maintenance of Rs. 2000/- to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- to respondent no. 3. A total of Rs. 3000/- was allowed by the learned Trial court which the petitioner has to pay the respondent no. 1 and 3 on a monthly basis. 3 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court is perverse in the eye’s of law. Family court has erred by not considering that the respondent no. 1/wife of the applicant herself earns Rs. 10,000/- per month by sewing work. Moreover Family court has not considered the fact that the applicant is a daily wage worker and therefore Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance would be financially burdensome and beyond his mean to pay. Learned counsel for the applicant also pointed out that prior to 18.06.2024 was not at all taking the responsibility of their children however, on the said date she took both the child along with her without even informing him. Hence he prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the concerned Family court in the interest of justice. 7. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order placed on record with utmost circumspection. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is noteworthy that in any way, no document has been presented regarding the income of the respondent no. 1. Hence it cannot be said that the respondent no. 1 is earning by some or the other means. It is an indisputable fact that the applicant and respondent no. 1 are legally wedded husband and wife. Respondent no 2 and 3 are their children who are minor. Respondent no. 1 along with Respondent no. 2 and 3 is living separately from applicant. Therefore, the responsibility of giving maintenance to the wife and children is the duty of the husband. Hence in the considered opinion of this Court the application allowed by the concerned Family Court is not at all perverse and illegal. 4 9. So far as the question of higher maintenance allowed by the Family court is concerned, applicant has stated that he used to earn Rs. 240/- per day in some company. Before that he used to work in fabrication also. Apart from all this his grand father is having four acre of agricultural land. He is a healthy man. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant is a non-earning person. So the amount allowed by the concerned family court that is Rs. 2000/- to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 1000/- to respondent no. 3 cannot be said to be on a higher side, in fact in the considered opinion of this court it is very meager looking to the inflation of today’s time. 10. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that Learned Judge, Family Court, has not committed any illegality in partly allowing the maintenance application of respondents. So far as the possibility of reduction in maintenance is concerned, it is clearly ruled out as the amount of maintenance granted to the respondents cannot said to be on a higher side, hence it is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court. 11. Hence from the above observation(s) made by this court, the instant revision being devoid of merits is dismissed and is
Decision
subsequently disposed of. 12. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza