Kanker, Chhattisgarh v. Suraj Kumar Soni S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31334 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 238 of 2019 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Smt. Surbhi Soni/gupta W/o Suraj Soni Aged About 23 Years D/o Bimal Kumar Gupta, R/o Kutchery Chowk, Amapara, Kanker District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Suraj Kumar Soni S/o Lakhan Lal Soni Aged About 32 Years R/o Sadar Dakshin Rambag Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Mandavi Bharadwaj, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in MJC No.104/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the 2 applicant's marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 22.02.2016, as per Hindu customs and rituals. About 15 days after the marriage, the respondent, his parents, and brother started harassing the applicant physically and mentally, demanding dowry in the form of cash and 10 tolas of gold. They claimed that the marriage was conditional upon the payment of Rs.5,00,000 in cash and 10 tolas of gold. When the applicant's brother visited the respondent house, he was told that the respondent marriage had been expensive, and unless their demands were met, they would not keep the applicant. The applicant's brother later took a new color TV worth approximately Rs.8,000/- to the respondent house and requested that they accept it as a gesture of goodwill. However, the respondent demanded that the applicant's parents pay Rs.5,00,000/- in cash soon. The applicant's brother took her back to Kanker. The applicant further alleged that after some time, the respondent and his family members started treating her cruelly again, demanding dowry and beating her. When the applicant's mother and father visited the respondent house with other relatives, the respondent and his family members refused to meet them. The applicant's family members then went to the respondent house and were assured that the cruelty would stop, but it continued. 3. On 12.07.2016, the applicant's parents and brother visited her and were told that she would not be kept as a wife unless their 3 demands were met. The applicant's family members were scared and took her back to Kanker, where she has been living with her parents since then. The respondent has not visited her or taken any steps to resolve the issue. The applicant is a disabled woman who is hard of hearing and speaks with difficulty. Despite being informed about her disability before the marriage, the respondent and his family members used it as a pretext to demand dowry and harass her. The applicant has filed a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent and his family members. The applicant is currently living with her parents and has no source of income. The respondent is financially capable, working at Shyam Honda Showroom, earning a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-, and also earning an additional Rs.10,000/- per month from photo editing and other work. The applicant has prayed for a maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- per month. Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply denying all the allegations as alleged by the applicant, the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the application under Section 125 filed by the applicant. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is unjustified and unreasonable. The applicant, who is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, has sufficient cause to reside separately due to the respondent's harassment and ill-treatment over dowry demands and character 4 assassination. The respondent's consistent cruelty led the applicant to leave her matrimonial home and lodged a written report against him and his family members at Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, on 10.07.2017. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is flawed due to incorrect presumptions and inferences, which are particularly egregious given the applicant's current situation as a deaf and dumb individual unable to work or communicate effectively, a disability certificate is attached as evidence (Annexure A/3). The Family Court failed to appreciate the factual matrix of the case, specifically that the respondent and his family members jointly resided and subjected the applicant to cruelty over dowry demands. This cruelty included physical assault, which forced the applicant to live separately. Notably, the respondent abandoned the applicant on 12.07.2016, and has since made no effort to reconcile or inquire about her well-being. The repeated assaults and harassment by the respondent demonstrate sufficient and reasonable cause for the applicant to live separately, entitling her to maintenance. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that the applicant, Smt. Surbhi 5 Soni/Gupta, has failed to prove that she is living separately from her husband, Suraj Kumar Soni, for any reasonable cause, therefore, the Family Court concluded that the applicant is not entitled to receive maintenance from her husband. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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