Bemetara, Chhattisgarh v. Arti Sharma W
Case Details
1 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.01.22 10:38:39 +0530 2025:CGHC:3582 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 136 of 2020 1 - Rajesh Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma Aged About 30 Years 2 - Om Prakash Sharma S/o Amarchand Sharma, 3 - Sushila Sharma W/o Om Prakash Sharma Aged About 50 Years 4 - Manish Sharma S/o Om Prakash Sharma Aged About 30 Years All residents of Bhaiji Garagewale, Sunder Nagar Raipur Road Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Arti Sharma W/o Rajesh Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o Baikunth, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr.Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : None present Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 21 /01/2025 2 1. Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. However, none appears on behalf of the respondent to press this revision. 2. The applicants have filed this revision with following prayer:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order 20.12.2019 to the extent of granting Rs.35000/- from April 2019 to October 2019 and Rs.3000/- from December 2019 onwards to the respondent, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that applicant No.1-Rajesh Sharma and respondent Aarti Sharma got married according to the Hindu custom on 12.03.2018. Respondent Aarti Sharma filed a complaint in Mahila Thana, Raipur against the applicants that she is being subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and after the failure of counseling, on 08.09.2018 FIR was registered in Bemetara police station against the applicants under Section 498- A/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and immediately after 2 days on 10.09.2018, Protection Officer, Women and Child Development Department submitted application before Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bemetara for providing maintenance and residence to the victim/respondent Aarti Sharma under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( for short ‘Act of 2005’) and a case was registered exercising powers U/S 9-B and 37(2)(C) of the Act of 3 2005 and U/s 18 & 19 of the Act of 2005 and ex-parte interim maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month was directed to be paid to respondent Aarti Sharma by the CJM, Bemetara and police station was directed for protection of the respondent. 4. On 03.11.2018 another application was filed that proper maintenance is not provided by the applicants and also submitted list of articles given at the time of marriage with prayer to return the same to the respondent. On 03.04.2019 another application filed by the respondent in City Kotwali, Bemetara alleging that bother-in-law Manish Sharma assaulted her, but after medical examination police find it case of no interference under Section 155 of the CrPC. Thereafter the respondent made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police and returned to her parental house. On 24.04.2019 the respondent again filed application before court that interim maintenance amount of Rs. 5000/- is not paid for 7 month and prayed for payment of Rs. 35000/-. The applicants also submitted application on 23.08.2019 mentioning that after order dated 10.09.2018 for providing residence to the respondent, the respondent is residing with applicant Rajesh Sharma in separate rented house from 16.09.2018 and the respondent herself left the house, on 03.04.2019 leaving behind infant daughter (about 2 moths) with applicant Rajesh Sharma. Applicant Rajesh Sharma is unemployed still somehow managing to take care of her daughter by doing occasional labor work whereas the respondent is law graduate and registered Advocate in Raipur District Bar 4 Association and practicing at Raipur District Court, therefore the interim maintenance granted on 10.09.2018 be kindly set aside or reduced, however the contention of the applicants was denied by the respondent. The Trial Court dismissed the application dated 23.08.2019 of the applicants by order dated 07.09.2019 and directed the applicants to pay interim maintenance of total Rs. 35000/- for seven months. 5. The applicants filed an appeal before Additional Session Judge, Bemetara, whereby submitted that 16.09.2018 to 03.04.2019 the respondent was residing with applicant No. 1 and complete expenses was borne by applicant No. 1, but the respondent had prayed for maintenance of that period also by suppressing the said facts. The trial Court failed to consider that the respondent had left her infant daughter committing cruelty with daughter therefore not entitled for any relief. 6. After hearing both the parties, the Additional Session Judge, Bemetara held that the trial Court have power to review its order under Section 25 of the Act of 2005 in view of change in circumstances and in view of the changing circumstances that the respondent residing with the applicants, bearing complete maintenance expenses from 16.09.2018 to 03.04.2019 and infant daughter is left by the respondent, however the Appellate Court directed the applicants to pay Rs. 35000/- to the respondent for April 2019 to October 2019 at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month 5 within 30 days & also directed to pay Rs.3000/- per month to the respondent from December 2019. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 20.12.2019 is bad to the extent of granting Rs. 35000/- from April 2019 to October 2019 and Rs. 3000/- from December 2019 onwards to the respondent, therefore liable to be set aside. Applicant Rajesh Sharma is unemployed and other applicants have no responsibility to maintain the respondent under any provision of law. He further submits that the respondent had left her infant daughter with applicant Rajesh Sharma who is taking care of his daughter by doing occasional labor work. The respondent herself is law graduate duly registered with Raipur Bar Association and earning her livelihood by practicing in Raipur District Court whereas applicant Rajesh Sharma is unemployed. He also submits that without any reason, the respondent is residing separately, though separate house was arranged by applicant Rajesh Sharma and the appellate Court wrongly held that the change cannot be made in the maintenance amount from April 2019 even after finding change in the circumstances after April 2019. He contended that the respondent herself is treating her infant daughter with cruelty by leaving her in this tender age with his father when she badly need the mother. As such, the impugned order dated 20.12.2019 deserves to be set aside. 8. None present for the respondent when the case is called out for hearing. 6 9. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order. 10. On 08.01.2025 this Court passed the following order:- “Heard Mr.Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners in CRR No.136/2020 and for respondent No.2 in CRR No.370/2021. Also heard Mr.Sudeep Johri, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRR No.370/2021 and for respondent in CRR No.136/2020 as wwell as Mr.Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 in CRR No.370/2021. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that though the mediation between the parties has failed, but they had used their good officers and an amicable settlement is likely to be arrived between the parties, hence, they wish some further time for getting the same in writing and pray for an adjournment. Prayer is allowed. List these matters on 21.01.2025.” 11. Mr.Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicants states that mediation could not be arrived inspite of good officers of two counsels. 12. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the appellate Court has held that the respondent is a practicing 7 Advocate in Raipur Bar Association. There is no information of separate and self-acquired property of the respondent’s husband Rajesh Sharma, all the properties are shown as belonging to the joint family. Rajesh Sharma does not have any assured income from any job. Therefore, with a view to ensure that there is no shortage in the expenditure on the daughter, it seems appropriate to make some reduction in the interim maintenance amount given to the respondent. If the circumstances change in future, the respondent can also apply under Section 25(2) of the Act of 2005. The respondent will also not object to any reduction made for her, but the request of the applicants that the order of granting interim relief should be completely cancelled cannot be accepted. Therefore, the appeal filed on behalf of the applicants is partly allowed and the order of the trial Court dated 7.9.2019 is set aside and applicant No.1-Rajesh Sharma is ordered to pay Rs.35,000/- as lumpsum amount to the respondent within one month at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month from April, 2019 to October, 2019 and also directed to pay Rs.3000/- per month to the respondent from December, 2019. 13. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, perusing the order impugned and findings recorded by the appellate Court, we are of the considered opinion that the Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 8 14. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu