Anand Kombe S/o Harish Kombe Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 914, Road v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8228 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 224 of 2025 Anand Kombe S/o Harish Kombe Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 914, Road No. 19, Near Mother Convent School, Ward No. 21 Asha Nagar, Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Kritika Kombe W/o Anand Kombe Aged About 33 Years,
Legal Reasoning
2 - Dhruv Kombe S/o Anand Kombe, Aged About 03 Months Through Legal Guardian (Mother) Smt. Kritika Kombe, Both are R/o Near Angel Garden School, Sector 3, Shivanand Nagar, Khamtarai, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/02/2025 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.835/2024 (Annexure A-1), whereby the Family Court has granted interim maintenance total amount of Rs.15,000/- per 2 month in which Rs.10,000/- for respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- for respondent No.2, hence this revision is being filed on the following facts. 2. Brief facts of this case are that on 30.05.2023, the applicant had solemnized marriage along with respondent No.1 since then the respondent no. 1 was living with applicant as wife at her matrimonial house and on their wedlock, respondent no. 2 born. It is alleged that after some time of marriage, the applicant started harassing to his wife/ respondent No.1 by demanding dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- from the father of respondent No.1. Both the parties were getting married through the the community members and the Applicant and their family members did not took any single penny in marriage from Non-applicant no.01 and the Non Applicant no.01 went to her paternal home from her own will for celebrating Bhaidooj festival after Diwali happily for 10-15 days and she was 5 months pregnant that time and very happy with the family members of the applicant and whole medical expenses of Non applicant no.01 was bear by the applicant and continuously in contact with the non applicant no.01 about her health and the routine check ups. 3. After some days, the applicant tries to take non applicant back to her maternal home, but every time she refused or made excuses. After that on dated 10.12.2023 the applicant along with the community held meeting to take her back with the applicant, but the parents of the Non 3 applicant no.01 refused to sent her back with the applicant and threatened the applicant to stay away from the non applicant. On 14.12.2023, the applicant made a written complaint to the Superintendent of police about the said incident. 4. On 14.04.2024, non-applicant no.01 lodged a written complaint of demanding Rs.5,00,000/- against the applicant in Mahila Thana, Raipur and the counselling was held on 24.04.2024, 29.04.2024 & 13.05.2024 of both the parties, even in that time there was no issues from the side of applicant and the applicant is ready to take her back, but the Non applicant refused to live with the applicant without any sufficient reason. 5. After issuing the notice to the applicant, the applicant has filed reply and denied the all averment pleaded in the application. The learned Family Court passed the impugned order, whereby allowed the interim maintenance application of the respondents and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month (Rs.10,000/- for respondent no. 1 and Rs.5,000/- for respondent no. 2). Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order passed by learned the family court below is completely illegal, erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. He further contented respondent No.1/wife is educated women and she completed her BE (CSE) from CSVTU 4 Bhilai, and MBA from Banglore University resides at her father’s house. She has also works at Shivansh International School, Raipur and she is able to maintain herself and have sufficient source of income and therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the applicant. It is fairly submitted by the counsel that the applicant having a private job and earned Rs.50,000/- per month. Further, the applicant has old age parents who were having critical medical illness and a unmarried sister with him and the applicant is a single earning member of his family. It is, therefore, prayed that the Court be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month (Rs.10,000/- for respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.2). 9. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that respondent No.1/wife has no high source of income, she is residing in her parental home with her minor son/respondent No.2 and she is struggling to support herself, hence, the Family Court granted the interim maintenance to the non-applicants/respondents under Section 5 125 of CrPC, applicant is husband of the respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2, has to pay the said interim maintenance amount. 10. Further, on perusal of the order under challenge, it is evident that the learned Family Court has discussed the factors while arriving at a finding is just and proper. From perusal of the same, it is evident that the applicant and respondent were married according to their customs and it is alleged that due to the harassment by the applicant, respondent had to reside separately. Thereafter, she is facing great hardships and is unable to maintain herself. The respondents have been living separately from the applicant after they were deserted and hence, the learned Family Court has rightly determined the total amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondents, therefore, in the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Family Court, Raipur (C.G.). 11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable
Decision
to be and is hereby dismissed and stands disposed of. Sd/- Vasant (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge