Ramratan S/o Late Jagatram Aged About 38 Years R/o Peeparhattha, Police Station Chhura, Tahsil v. 1 - Ku. Gracy And Anr. D/o Ramratan Dadsena Aged About 6 Years
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:29580 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 300 of 2016 Ramratan S/o Late Jagatram Aged About 38 Years R/o Peeparhattha, Police Station Chhura, Tahsil And District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN versus 1 - Ku. Gracy And Anr. D/o Ramratan Dadsena Aged About 6 Years
Legal Reasoning
Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Fuleshwari Dadsena W/o Ramratan Dadsena, R/o Village Pachri, Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Fuleshwari Dadsena W/o Ramratan Dadsena Aged About 32 Years R/o Peeparhatta, Police Station Chhura, Tahsil And District Gariyaband Chhattisgrh At Present R/o Village Pachri, Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01 /07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order 2 dated 29.02.2016 passed by learned Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.122/2015, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage of the respondent No.1 with the applicant was solemnized on June 30, 2006, in Village Pachari, Police Station Patewa, according to Hindu rites and customs (Saptapadi). The parties have a daughter from their marital relationship, who is currently in the custody of the respondent No.2 for 7 years after marriage, enjoying a happy marital life. However, after being afflicted with sciatica, the applicant failed to provide proper treatment, rendering her unable to perform household chores or physical labor. Her family members took her to their native village for treatment, which is ongoing in Pithora, Raipur, and Bermkela (Raigarh district). Due to her ongoing treatment, she couldn't return to her matrimonial home, prompting the applicant to file a complaint with the local community organization, Chhattisgarh Dadsena Kalar Samaj. The organization directed the applicant to allow the respondent No.2 to stay in her parental village for six months for treatment and to take care of her during this period. However, the applicant disregarded these instructions and 3 married another woman, Sukhinbai, on June 5, 2015. The respondent, due to her illness and financial constraints, is unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter, relying on her brother for support. The brother, however, is also struggling to provide for them. The respondent seeks maintenance for herself and her daughter. The respondents claimed that the applicant has a significant income from various sources. They stated that he owns approximately 10 acres of irrigated agricultural land in Village Piprahatta, from which he earns around Rs.2,00,000 per year by growing two crops (Rabi and Kharif) annually. Additionally, he earns Rs.1,00,000 per year by renting out his tractor to other farmers after using it for his own agricultural needs. Based on this, the respondents requested a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.5,000 for the first applicant and Rs.8,000 for the second applicant, totaling Rs.13,000 per month, to be paid by the applicant. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court failed to recognize that the respondent No.2 lives separately without a valid reason, disqualifying her from maintenance. Additionally, the court didn't acknowledge that the applicant never forced the respondents to leave and is willing to have them live with him. The applicant, who supports his elderly and infirm 4 parents through cultivation on undivided family land, has no independent income source. Despite this, the court awarded high maintenance without sufficient evidence of the applicant's income. Notably, the respondent No.2 abandoned the applicant's home without justification and refused to return despite his efforts. Given these circumstances, the maintenance award seems excessive, unjustified and the same is liable to be set-aside. 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 Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that the applicant stated that his primary source of income is agriculture, supplemented by labor work. He cultivates approximately 3-4 acres of land, but one acre has been encroached upon by another farmer. He claimed that only 1-2 acres of his land are suitable for paddy cultivation, while the rest is used for crops like kodo. After 5 deducting agricultural expenses and loan repayments, he estimated his annual income to be around Rs.20,000/-. However, during cross-examination, he admitted to owning 2 hectares of land in Village Piprahatta, which has irrigation facilities via a canal. Based on the evidence, it is clear that the applicant has sufficient means of income from agriculture and labor work, making him capable of providing maintenance to the respondents, hence, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled to maintenance. 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 the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil 6