Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31328 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 226 of 2020 Smt. Lekhan Sahu W/o Shri Bhisham Kumar Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Dubey Colony, House No. 432 / 57, Plot No. Z - 118, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Behind Mahindra Show Room, Lawan Road, Baloda Bazar, District - Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant Bhisham Kumar Sahu S/o Late Budhram Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Rohasi, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Dubey Colony, House No. 432/57, Plot No. Z - 118, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to 2 set aside the impugned order dated 23/01/2020 passed by the Family Court Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) and grant the maintenance amount, passed in Miscellaneous criminal case No. 51/2019 and the Revision may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the present revision arises from the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), in a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the applicant (wife) seeking maintenance from the non-applicant (husband). The applicant and non-applicant were married on 30.04.2007 as per Hindu rites in Village Rohasi, P.S. Palari, and initially resided together happily for about a year. Thereafter, the applicant was allegedly subjected to regular harassment, abuse, and physical assault by the non-applicant and his family members, including being denied food and medical care. Due to continued cruelty, she lodged a complaint at Mahila Thana Raipur, but the police failed to initiate proper action and merely referred the matter to the court under Section 155 Cr.P.C. The applicant, despite her willingness to return to her matrimonial home, was repeatedly refused by the non-applicant and ultimately expelled. She currently resides at her parental home with no source of income, while the non-applicant, employed as Assistant Grade-II in the Food Corporation of India, Mahasamund, earns ₹19,500/- per month and also has agricultural income from 6 acres of land. The 3 applicant sought ₹10,000/- per month as maintenance. The non- applicant denied all allegations, and the trial court, after framing issues and recording evidence, rejected the maintenance application solely on the ground that the applicant was living at her parental home. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition seeking to set aside the impugned judgment. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the learned Family Court in MJC No. 51/2019 is bad in law, perverse, and liable to be set aside. The applicant, being the legally wedded wife of the non- applicant, had clearly stated her willingness to reside with her husband and lead a marital life. However, she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the non-applicant and his family, including being denied food and medical care, which compelled her to lodge complaints at Police Station Mowa, Raipur. Despite earning ₹25,000–30,000 per month as Assistant Grade II in FCI and having agricultural income from 6 acres of land, the non- applicant failed to provide any support. The Family Court erred in concluding that the applicant was staying with her father voluntarily and failed to appreciate that she has no independent source of income. No credible evidence was presented by the non-applicant to prove that the applicant was employed or earning ₹7,000/month. Furthermore, the non-applicant did not file any salary slip to rebut her claims. The Family Court wrongly denied maintenance despite clear evidence of cruelty and desertion. The applicant, being 4 dependent and jobless, is legally entitled to maintenance, and the order rejecting her claim suffers from serious legal infirmity and should be set aside in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhathapara, District- Balodabazar- Bhathapara, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, BalodaBazar, has rightly rejected the applicant’s claim for maintenance after due consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances of the case. The Court carefully examined the allegations of cruelty and desertion made by the applicant but found no conclusive or corroborative evidence to support such claims. Despite the applicant’s assertion of being mistreated and ousted from the matrimonial home, no substantive proof was presented to establish physical abuse or denial of basic necessities. Furthermore, the Family Court noted that the applicant had chosen to reside at her parental home without any compelling justification that could be legally recognized as a “sufÏcient cause” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The non-applicant had denied the allegations and the Court found no reliable material to disprove his version or to establish his financial status beyond mere claims. 5 Therefore, in the absence of credible evidence of cruelty, desertion, or the applicant’s inability to maintain herself due to any unlawful conduct by the non-applicant, the Family Court committed no error in law or fact in dismissing the maintenance application. 8. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan