Ketan Shah S/o Late Shri Ratilal Shah, Aged About 45 Years R/o M. I v. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:25106 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1113 of 2017 Ketan Shah S/o Late Shri Ratilal Shah, Aged About 45 Years R/o M. I. G. 71, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, P. S. Supela, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Neelam Shah W/o Ketan Shah, Aged About 41 Years R/o Quarter No. 1, Lig 374, Pt. Deendayal Housing Board, Junwani, P. S. Supela, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. 2. Heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 28.09.2017 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.246/2016, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the 2 respondent and directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent has moved an application, wherein she has stated that it is admitted facts that the marriage between applicant and respondent solemnized on 20.04.1997, from their wedlock two daughter, namely, Ku. Khayati aged about 17 years and Ku. Isha, aged about 12 years, both minor girls child, were residing with the present applicant. As per application of the respondent before the learned Family Court, after marriage she has came to her matrimonial House at Vaishali Nagar Durg and after that, first daughter was born on dated 14.05.1998 and after that, second daughter was born. The respondent always make allegation for her ill treatment to the present applicant and also she was working in hospital on the post of general Physician and also she was getting handsome salary, but due to her allegation, the applicant is frustrated and also the respondent make other allegation to her mother-in-law. 4. In the year 2013, the respondent at her own will has left her job in B. M. Shah Hospital and then she alleged the applicant that due to his ill treatment, she has left her job. The respondent alleged over the present applicant that she never wants to give birth to second child, but by forcing of applicant, she has given birth the child. It has been alleged that the respondent said to the applicant that she will not reside with the applicant and after that, on dated 3 31.07.2014 there was a counseling held before the Mahila Thana Durg and wherein, she alleged over the present applicant and also stated that she don't wants resident with the applicant. On dated 15.05.2015, the respondent has left her matrimonial house and left to the applicant's house situated at village Junwani, house No. LIG/374, and till today she has not come. Due to the ill treatment of the respondent, on 20.08.2015 the applicant has filed an application for divorce before the learned Family Court, in which, the Court has issued notice to the respondent to appear. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed and order of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned trial Court has failed to see that the respondent and applicant were residing alone, although the respondent has never made any effort to reside with the applicant and also in her counseling before the Mahila Thana, she said that she does not want to reside with the applicant. He further submits that the respondent is a very well educated lady and she is a physician, it is admitted fact that she is running a health center as clinic at village Junwani, wherein she earns at about 25,000/- per month. He also submits that the applicant was not getting any handsome salary, although he has to maintain his two daughters, look over their education, their health and other expenses and also has to maintain old age mother, who is completely dependent upon him, further the 4 respondent at her own will has left her matrimonial house and also she was well educated lady and earns more than the applicant. Lastly, mutual divorce between the two has already been taken place. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 respondent and directed the pay Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that respondent is a homeopathic doctor with her own clinic, but her income is not substantial. The applicant claims that the respondent earns more than Rs. 25,000 per month, but fails to provide relevant evidence to support this claim. Further, the applicant, on the other hand, claims to earn a salary of Rs. 88,000/- per month and is an income tax payer. He has the responsibility of maintaining his elderly mother and two daughters. 8. Even if it is assumed that the respondent earns some income, the applicant’s income is significantly higher. As the wife, the respondent’s standard of living should be comparable to that of her husband. The respondent’s income is not sufficient to maintain her standard of living, and as the husband, it is the applicant’s moral and legal obligation to maintain his wife according to his means. Considering the age, social status, 5 needs, and current inflation of both parties, the Family Court has awarded the applicant Rs. 10,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance from the applicant. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil