Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32625 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 159 of 2021 Anuppratap Singh S/o Shri Ajmer Singh Aged About 35 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Rataura, P. S. Kelhari, Tahsil Manendragarh, P. S. And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Rambai W/o Anuppratap Singh Aged About 30 Years Caste Gond, R/o Pendri, P. S. And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh 2 - Vishnu Singh S/o Anuppratap Singh Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Legal Nature Mother Smt. Rambai, S/o Anuppratap Singh Caste Gond, R/o Pendri, P. S. And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare holding the brief of Mr. Ramsevak Soni, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by learned Family Court Manendragarh, District – Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.78/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to 2 pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that after marriage, the respondent No.1 (wife) went to live with her husband in her in-laws' village, Rathora, where both were living a marital life. However, the applicant (husband), who works as a secretary in Khadakhoh Janpad Panchayat Janakpur, started an affair with a woman named Kamla. For nearly two years, he began physically abusing the respondent, threatening to marry another woman and discard her. The husband's family supported his actions, and he would often beat the respondents after drinking alcohol, causing her physical and emotional distress by withholding basic necessities like food and clothing. About a year ago, the applicant brought Kamla to live with them in Rathora village and, under her influence, continued to physically abuse the respondents. A month ago, he violently threw her out of the house, and she has been living with her parents in Pendri village along with her child. The applicant has kept the respondent’s and her child's Aadhar card and ration card and becomes violent when she asks for them. The respondent had filed a report about the incident at Kelhari police station and informed the applicant’s about his relationship with another woman, but no action was taken. The application further mentions that the respondent does not work, while the applicant earns Rs. 10,000/- per month as a secretary and has an additional income of Rs. 20,000/- per month 3 from four acres of agricultural land. Despite being financially capable, the applicant has not provided any maintenance to the respondent No.1 and her child. Therefore, the respondents request a monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- for herself and Rs. 4,000 for her child, totaling Rs. 10,000/-. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply denied the allegations as alleged by the respondents against them. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent claimed the applicant had taken a second wife, Kamla Bai. However, She produced only one witness (her uncle) and failed to present two witnesses as required and she did not examine Kamla Bai herself or any of Kamla Bai's relatives or neighbors, this lack of evidence weakens the respondent's claim about the applicant's alleged second marriage. He further submits that the Family Court overlooked the facts that the applicant tried to maintain their marital life. the respondent refused to live with the applicant. A compromise was reached through a gram panchayat meeting to resolve their disputes. This suggests the respondent may have been unwilling to reconcile, impacting the court's decision. He also submits that the respondent failed to prove the applicant's alleged second marriage because she claimed the 4 applicant lived with a second wife for 2 years, Yet, she didn't raise this issue during that period. Instead, she made these allegations during the maintenance proceedings, suggesting they might be false or exaggerated. He later submits that the respondent owns 10 acres of agricultural land where she grows crops like paddy and wheat, works as a laborer under the State's Rozgar Guarantee scheme, sells mahua (a type of fruit) to supplement her income, which makes her financially capable of managing her livelihood. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that the respondent No.1 (wife) works as a laborer and is capable of supporting herself and the child, but this does not absolve the applicant of his responsibility. As a Gram Secretary, even if we accept his statement that he earns Rs. 15,000 per month, he also owns a four-wheeler and receives agricultural produce, which contributes to his livelihood. The standard of living of his wife and child should be commensurate with his own. Regarding the maintenance amount, considering the living standards of both parties and the minimum 5 requirements of an average person, since the applicant No. 1 is living with her father and does not need to spend on housing, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled for maintenance, and directed the applicant to pay monthly maintenance to respondents as aforementioned, which is not on higher side. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil