Police Station Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh v. Trilok Verma Aged About
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31325 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 263 of 2020 1. 2. Smt. Gunjan Verma (wrongly written as Smt. Gujan Verma) W/o Trilok Verma Aged About 23 Years R/o Arya Nagar, Kohka, Ward No. 07, Bhilai, Police Station Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Ku. Yamini Verma, D/o Trilok Verma, aged about 20 days, minor through natural guardian mother Gunjan Bai, R/o Arya Nagar, Kohka, Ward No. 07, Bhilai, Police Station Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Trilok Verma Aged About 24 Years, Occupation Labour In The Bhilai Ispat Factory, R/o Dabarapara, Bhilai, P.S. Khursipar, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh .. Respondent For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pravin Dhurandhar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.09 10:34:58 +0530 1. 2. Heard Mr. Pravin Dhurandhar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the revision and set-aside the 2 finding in order dated 25.01.2020 whereby maintenance has been rejected to the applicant No. 01 and it is also prayed that the maintenance awarded to the applicant No. 02 may be suitably enhanced, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants seeking maintenance against the respondent, who is the husband of applicant No.1 and the father of applicant No.2. It was pleaded, inter alia, in the application that the marriage between the parties was solemnized, and out of the said wedlock, applicant No.2 was born. It was stated that after the marriage, applicant No.1 was subjected to harassment for demand of dowry, which was also supported by the relatives of the husband. Further, it was pleaded that when the wife was pregnant on 20-03-2016, she was subjected to assault for the demand of a motorcycle. Thereafter, she was ousted from the matrimonial home, and since then, she has been residing with her parents. It was further stated that the entire expenses of the birth of the child were borne by the parents of applicant No.1. It was also stated that the respondent was working as a labourer in Bhilai Steel Plant, earning Rs.12,000/- per month. It was further stated that the applicants have been neglected and have no source of income; hence, maintenance of Rs.3,500/- for applicant No.1 and Rs.1,000/- for applicant No.2 was claimed. 4. The respondent filed his reply, denying the contentions and stating that applicant No.1 was never harassed and that she misbehaved with the parents of the respondent. It was further stated that applicant No.1 left the house without any sufÏcient reason. It was also stated that while leaving the in-laws’ house, applicant No.1 took Rs.20,000/- along with 3 other articles, regarding which the respondent had lodged a report with the police on 22.03.2016. It was further stated that during counseling, the wife refused to reside with the husband. It was also stated that on 11.06.2016, a registered notice was sent by the counsel for the wife to the husband. It was further stated that the applicant and her relatives did not behave properly and that applicant No.1 is an earning lady. It was also stated that an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed, which is pending, and thus, prayed for rejection of the application. 5. Learned Family Court, after considering the evidence laid by the parties, passed the impugned order dated 25.01.2020 (Annexure A-1), whereby it rejected the application filed by applicant No.1 on the ground that she is residing separately without any sufÏcient reason and allowed the application of applicant No.2, awarding a meagre maintenance of Rs.2,500/-. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order of learned Family Court dated 25.01.2020 (Annexure A-1) is not proper and, therefore, it is liable to be enhanced. The order passed by the learned Family Court dated 25.01.2020 is illegal to the extent that the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by applicant No.1 has been rejected, and meagre maintenance has been granted to applicant No.2. He submits that learned Family Court gave an erroneous finding that the wife is residing separately without sufÏcient reason. Learned Family Court did not appreciate the fact that the applicant was subjected to harassment due to the demand for dowry by the husband, which is a sufÏcient reason for residing separately. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence of Mongara Bai, who is a witness of the 4 husband, and who admitted that the respondent has kept a lady named Rakhi at his house. Thus, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the husband has solemnized a second marriage, which in itself is a sufÏcient reason for the wife to reside separately. He further submits that learned Family Court, while giving its finding, relied upon the facts that a community meeting had taken place, an application under Section 9 was filed, and other counseling proceedings were undertaken. However, these facts were not proved by the husband by producing any document relating to the community meeting, the Section 9 application, or documents pertaining to the counseling proceedings. Thus, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the finding of learned Family Court is completely baseless and illegal. Learned Family Court has awarded Rs. 2,500/- to applicant No.2, who is the child of the respondent, from the date of the order i.e., 25.01.2020, which is illegal, and it ought to have been awarded from the date of the application. The amount of Rs. 2,500/- awarded to applicant No.2 is on the lower side, considering the rising cost of living and the age of the child. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 2500/- to the applicant No. 02, whereas the maintenance claimed by the applicant No. 02 was rejected, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 5 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek