Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36125 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 181 of 2023 Deepak Sahu S/o Shivnath Sahu Aged About 40 Years Presently R/o Ward No. 18, Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur (C.G.) versus ... Applicant 1 - Khushbu Sahu D/o Umashankar Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Dist. Koriya (C.G.) 2 - Vashishth Sahu S/o Deepak Sahu Aged About 10 Years Minor, Through non-applicant No., 1, R/o Village Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Dist. Koriya (C.G.) ... Non-applicants For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
modified by the this Court in 2019 to grant Rs. 5,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 1. Meanwhile, non-applicant No. 1 initiated criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 494, 114 IPC and Domestic Violence Act, in which the applicant was acquitted and the DV case settled after paying Rs. 1,00,000/- under compulsion. On grounds of cruelty and false implication, the applicant obtained a decree of divorce on 25.01.2019, thereby dissolving the marriage. He was also granted guardianship rights over his son by order dated 30.03.2022, though he alleges continued obstruction by non- applicant No. 1. A subsequent application by non-applicant No. 1 3 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance was dismissed on 29.03.2022. The applicant thereafter sought modification of maintenance obligations, contending that non- applicant No. 1 was employed as an Anganwadi worker earning Rs. 6,500/- per month, misusing maintenance funds for investments, and that he had remarried and was maintaining three children from his second marriage. Despite these grounds, his application was rejected by the Family Court on 24.12.2022. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has obtained a decree of divorce dated 25.01.2019, by virtue of which non-applicant No. 1 is no longer his lawful wife and, therefore, not entitled to claim maintenance from him. It is further submitted that non-applicant No. 1 had falsely implicated the applicant in criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and related provisions as well as in a domestic violence complaint, in which the applicant was honourably acquitted; moreover, under coercion, he had to pay her Rs. 1,00,000/- during settlement, which demonstrates the cruelty meted out to him. non-applicant No. 1 has been residing separately from the very beginning, by her own choice, and all efforts of the applicant for restitution of conjugal life failed, which was duly recorded in the earlier proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Additionally, non-applicant No. 1 is gainfully employed as an Anganwadi worker earning approximately Rs. 6,500/- per month and is financially capable of maintaining herself, as is evident from her ability to invest about Rs. 50,000/- annually in 4 premium payments. The applicant, on the other hand, has since remarried, has three children from the second marriage, and earns a modest income from private employment barely sufÏcient to maintain his current dependents. In such circumstances, compelling him to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 1, who is no longer his wife and is self-sufÏcient, would cause grave hardship and injustice to his present family. However, the applicant remains willing to maintain his son, non-applicant No. 2, but seeks relief from the maintenance liability towards non-applicant No. 1. 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, Manendragadh, Camp Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (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, upon careful evaluation of the pleadings, evidence, and the circumstances brought on record, rightly rejected the applicant’s application seeking modification of maintenance. The Court correctly held that the obligation to provide maintenance to non-applicant No. 1 and the minor child subsists despite the decree of divorce, as the statutory right under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is independent of marital status at the time of claim and is meant to prevent destitution. The Family Court duly considered that non- 5 applicant No. 1, though earning a modest amount as an Anganwadi worker, does not earn sufÏcient income to maintain herself and the minor child in present socio-economic conditions. It further rightly held that allegations of false implication and acquittal in earlier criminal proceedings cannot extinguish the non-applicant’s right to maintenance, especially when the welfare of the child is paramount. The applicant’s subsequent remarriage and responsibilities towards his second family cannot absolve him of his pre-existing duty to maintain his first wife and child. Accordingly, the order dated 24.12.2022 suffers from no infirmity, and the enhancement or continuation of maintenance was just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 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. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice
Arguments
: Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.07.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and thus the impugned order dated 24-12-2022 (Annexure P/1) passed in Miscellaneous RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 criminal case no 16/2021, may kindly be quashed consequently the applicant may kindly be exonerated from the liability of making payment of Rs 5,000/- per month to the res no 1, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant’s marriage with non- applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 28.05.2010 as per Hindu rites, and a son, Vashishth Sahu (non-applicant No. 2), was born on 27.07.2011. After the child’s birth, the applicant alleges that non- applicant No. 1’s attitude changed, and she left the matrimonial home in 2011 without sufÏcient reason, refusing to return despite several requests and social interventions. The applicant filed proceedings under Section 98 Cr.P.C., which concluded with a finding that non-applicant No. 1 was living separately of her own will. Subsequently, in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Family Court initially rejected non-applicant No. 1’s claim for maintenance but allowed Rs. 2,000/- for the child; this was later