Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27081 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 193 of 2024 Shri Pravin Kumar Thakur S/o Shyam Singh Thakur Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 386, Ward No. 10, Dangal Chowk, Gram Takari, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh versus ... Applicant(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 1 - Smt. Vijeta Singh Thakur W/o Shri Pravin Kumar Thakur Aged About 27 Years R/o Shyam Bazar, Ward No. 08, Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
2 - Kumari Yashsvi Singh Thakur D/o Shri Pravin Kumar Thakur Aged About 05 Month, R/o Shyam Bazar, Ward No. 08, Arang, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Through - Natural Guardian Smt. Vijeta Singh Thakur. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Juhi Anguriya, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order 2 dated 06.12.2023 passed by learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.197/21, whereby learned Family Court has granted Rs.7,000/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent No.2 in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision are that The applicant and the respondents No. 1 are husband and wife who got married on dated 15.12.2018 as per Hindu rituals at Arang Distt- Raipur (CG). They also have a daughter respondent No 2 from their wedlock who is presently residing with respondent No 1. The applicant and the respondent No.1 are living separately since 27.02.2020 as respondent No.1 has deserted the applicant home on her own wish. Despite applicant’s repeated attempts and requests, the respondent No. 1 has not return back to her matrimonial home and she is presently residing in her paternal house at Arang, Distt-Raipur (CG). The applicant and respondent No. 1 were happily married and leading normal married life but due to interference of the respondent No. 1’s mother and sisters differences started cropping up between applicant and respondent No 1. Their married life started getting sore as respondent No.1 started making allegations of dowry, using abusive, rude and insulting language, assault on the applicant many times. The respondent No. 1 even made complaint to Thana Arang against 3 the applicant and his family members but as the police did not find any criminal incident so the police has not registered any FIR against the revisionist and his family members and closed the complaint U/s 155 Cr.P.C. The applciant made several attempts to bring back the respondent No.1 to her matrimonial home but due to adamant attitude of the respondent No.1 the attempt of the applicant could not be fructified. The allegation made by respondent No. 1 that on 27.02.2020 her mother was told to come to applicant house in Takari and the respondent No. 1 was assaulted by the applicant in front of her mother only is totally false. Also the respondent No 1 made allegation that she was forcefully sent back to her fathers home along with her mother and was told to never return back is totally false and malicious which have no substance. Later respondent No 1 filed an application U/s 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from the revisionist and her daughter. The revisionist in his reply denied all the allegations made by the respondent and expressed his bonafide desire to bring back the respondents in his house. The case of maintenance was once taken up in LokAdalat but their also the matter could not be settled amicably due to adamant and non-cooperative attitude of the respondent No 1. The fact made out by the respondent No 1 that the applicant is a executive in multinational company and earning Rs. 50000/- monthly and also earning extra income of Rs. 10000/- from family farming activity have no substance and is totally false. The Family Court passed 4 the interim order dated 06.12.2023 directing the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2000/- to respondent No 2. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has failed to consider the fact that respondent No.1 mentioned din her affidavit dated 16.03.2021 that she is spending Rs.16,000/- per month, but she has no source of income and she is living on the mercy of her parents and relatives, though she has stated her monthly expenditure Rs.16,000/- but failed to state her source of income towards spending the said amount. He further submits that respondent No. 1 is also co-owner in an agriculture land bearing survey No. 197 in Gram Piprahatha, Tehsil Arang, Raipur and in the affidavit, respondent No.1 has suppressed the said fact that she is also a land owner. He also submits that learned Family Court erred in wrongly finding Rs. 24,000/- as monthly expenditure of applicant, whereas the actual expenditure is Rs.12,000/- and the same is clearly stated in the affidavit dated 18.08.2023. Lastly, the respondent No.1 left the applicant in matrimonial house on her own wish, the respondent No.1 is a professionally qualified nurse and capable of earning her livelihood. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by learned 2 nd 5 Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.197/21 vide order dated 06.12.2023. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance and directed the pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards interim maintenance observing that it is undisputed facts that applicant is the respondent No.1’s wife and is living separately from him, making it the respondent's duty to provide maintenance. The applicant claimed that the respondent works as an export educator/accountant in a multinational company, earning approximately Rs.50,000 per month, and also has agricultural income of Rs.10,000 per month from ancestral property. However, the document (Farm B-1 Kishtbandi Khatouni) presented by the applicant to prove agricultural income shows that the landowners are Shailbala (wife of Shyamsingh Thakur) and Purnima Thakur (wife of Hemant Singh Thakur), not the respondent. The respondent stated that he works temporarily in a private company, earning around Rs.20,000 per month. Both parties submitted affidavits. The applicant did not disclose her occupation, while the respondent claimed his monthly expenses Rs.24,000/-, monthly income from tuition Rs.3,000/- and annual 6 income from agriculture Rs.1,20,000. After considering the social and economic status of both the parties, the Family Court has come to the conclusion that it seems justifiable to award maintenance to respondents. 8. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the Family Court concerned shall make earnest endeavor to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil