District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh v. Subhash Pandey S
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:28207 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1112 of 2016 Smt. Soni Tiwari W/o Subhash Pandey, Aged About 26 Years R/o Raj Mahal Chowk, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil Kawardha, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Raj Family, Ward No. 4, Khairagarh, Police Station And Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Subhash Pandey S/o Late Chandrika Prasad, Aged About 30 Years R/o Rajmahal Chowk, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-applicant : None present. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26.06.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. None appeared for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this 2 revision petition and the impugned order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Camp Court-Khairagarh, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) may kindly be modified, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant /wife and the non-applicant/husband was solemnized on 18.01.2014 with Custom Rites and Rituals in Khairagarh. It is further alleged that the parents of the present applicant and relatives gave household articles and gifts including cooler, almirah, fridge, utensils etc. to the couple. It is stated that after the marriage, the present applicant started living with the non-applicant at Rajmahal Chowki, Kawardha but thereafter, the non-applicant and her sister and mother started cruelty against the present applicant by saying that due to the applicant, the non applicant was arrested by the police and parents of the applicant did not give sufÏcient dowry. It is further stated that the present applicant was subjected to cruelty by mother and sister of the non-applicant who told her that she will remarry the non- applicant after getting dowry in sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs and further told if she wanted to live with non-applicant then she has to bring Rs. 5 Lakhs from her father. It is further alleged that the non-applicant and her family members drive out the present applicant then she went to house of her maternal uncle-in-law (Mama Sasur) namely Ravi Shankar Mishra who also tried to intervene the matter but the non- applicant and his family refused to take back the present applicant, thereafter, she went to her parental house Khairagarh. It is further stated in the application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., filed by 3 the applicant that the applicant again went to the house of the non applicant on 18.02.2014 but the non-applicant and his family refused to take back the applicant and expel her after her refusal to come back with amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs. The present applicant was subjected to cruelty whereby the present applicant was beaten by the non-applicant and his family members then the present applicant moved to police station - Kawardha and lodged a report where the First Information Report No. 119/2014 under section 498- A of IPC was registered against the non-applicant and his family members and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). It is further stated in the application that the applicant is unable to maintain herself, therefore, applicant is standing at the verge of starvation. It is further stated that the non applicant is working in a private finance company and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month and commission also. The non-applicant has two trucks by which he used to earn Rs. 50,000/- and he has car also which is also runs in traveling agency. It is further stated that the non applicant has five acre agricultural land in which he used to grow, wheat, sugarcane etc. and used to earn Rs. 5 Lakhs per year. It is further stated that the mother of the non-applicant gets Rs. 25,000/- per month as pension and the non-applicant live with her mother. Thus the present non-applicant is a person having sufÏcient means and no liability whereas the applicant is a housewife and unable to maintain herself. Due to lack of support and financial hardship, the applicant filed an application under 4 Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/-per month from the non-applicant. 4. The application filed by the applicant was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 06/2016 and after getting notice of the Family Court, Camp Court - Khairagarh, the non applicant appeared before the Court but neither filed his reply nor produced any witness. 5. The applicant and her witness namely Tulsi Tiwari were examined before the learned Family Court and thereafter, the non-applicant was not examined before the learned Family Court, therefore, considering the documents placed before the Family Court concerned the learned Family Court decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 10.08.2016, whereby the non-applicant/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance. Hence, this revision petition for enhancement of maintenance amount. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the learned Family Court erred in appreciating the evidence advance by the applicant and also failed to appreciate that the evidence of applicant cannot be denied by the non-applicant. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the application and evidence of the applicant in proper perspective and has also erred in observing the facts brought by applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court erred in finding of determination of the fact on various reasons and settled down the alimony in wrong presumption and contents have been wrongly taken into consideration, which is perverse, bad in law and 5 needs modification in the order by increasing the maintenance allowance up to Rs. 15,000/- in favour of the applicant, as it has been proved before the learned Family Court that the non-applicant is a person having sufÏcient means and neglects or refuses to maintain the applicant. The non-applicant is under obligation to look after and maintain the applicant as the facts and circumstances of the case. He also submits that the learned Family Court erred in passing the order to pay the maintenance allowance from the date order but it may be ordered from the date of filing of application for maintenance. The learned Family Court also erred in granting very low amount on the part of expenses for filing of the case, it may also be modified/enhanced by this Court. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record by both parties, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹1,500/- per month to the applicant/wife. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living to which the applicant was 6 accustomed during the subsistence of marriage, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. The impugned order reflects a just and fair assessment made by the Family Court upon appreciation of the material available on record. 9. Considering the submission 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Kunal