Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40426 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 223 of 2024 Nathu Ram Bandhe S/o Thanwar Bandhe Aged About 35 Years R/o - Village - Purena, Tehsil And P.S. - Bhakhara, District Dhamtari (C.G.). AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN versus ... Applicant(s) 1 - Smt. Nirmala Bai W/o Nathuram Bandhe Aged About 32 Years R/o Bhatapara, Piparchhedi Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.). 2 - Kumari Sumitra Bandhe D/o Nathuram Bandhe Aged About 18 Years
Legal Reasoning
Since Mentally And Physically Challenged Through Her Guardian
Legal Reasoning
Mother Res. No. 1, Smt. Nirmala Bai, W/o Nathuram, R/o Bhatapara, Piparchhedi Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.48/2020, whereby, the 2 learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- to respondent No.2, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that a few days after the marriage, the applicant began saying to respondent No. 1, that he don’t like her, and he married her under pressure of his family, and on trivial matters would find fault in her household work, assault her, and threaten to kill her. He would also threaten to throw her out of the house and marry another woman, which caused the respondent No.1 mental and physical distress. He assaulted her over bringing insufficient dowry, caused her hardship in food and drink, refused to give her money for necessary expenses, and behaved with cruelty. From the marital relationship between the parties, two daughters, Kumari Sumitra and Kumari Anju, were born in Village Piparchhedi. Whenever the respondent No.1 was pregnant, the applicant would leave her at her parental home and would not bear the delivery expenses. The applicant would sometimes leave her at her parental home for three months and at other times for six months, and on several occasions, her relatives had to take her back to her matrimonial home. Respondent No. 2 had to discontinue her studies due to ill health, she suffered from paralysis, for which the applicant neither arranged treatment nor provided maintenance. Respondent No. 3 is currently studying in Class 11, and the applicant does not bear 3 the cost of her education. Furthermore, the respondents state that the applicant remarried about ten years ago and lives with his second wife in Village Puraena, with whom he has children. About three years ago, the applicant, along with his second wife, assaulted the respondent No.1 and expelled her from the house along with the children. Since then, the respondent No.1 has been residing at her parental home. The applicant used to visit the respondent from time to time and gave her Rs.5,000/- per month for expenses, but for the past year, he has stopped visiting her and providing any maintenance amount. 3. The respondent No.1 has no source of income, and her parents are not in a position to bear the her expenses and her children for a long time. Due to the applicant’s failure to provide maintenance, the respondents are facing a situation where they have no means to survive. On 06.02.2020, the respondent No.1 also lodged a report at Bhakhra Police Station regarding the assault, disputes, and refusal to provide expenses by the applicant and his wife. The applicant owns 6 acres of agricultural land in Village Puraena and a tea-and-snacks shop, from which he earns about Rs.30,000/- per month and an annual income of about Rs.2,00,000/- from cultivation. Therefore, it has been requested that each respondents be awarded Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance from the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the respondents. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the 4 parties has granted maintenance to the respondents as aforementioned. Hence, the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent No.3, who was stated to be the daughter of respondent No.1 and the applicant, is not in fact the daughter of the applicant, but was born from the relationship of respondent No.1 with another person. When the applicant raised a preliminary objection regarding the grant of maintenance to her, her name was deleted, as is evident from the order of the Family Court dated 8.1.2024. It is further submitted that respondent No.1/wife is living in adultery, and therefore, in view of proviso to Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., she is not entitled for maintenance. However, it is fairly stated that the applicant has no objection if the maintenance amount which was granted to respondent No.1 is instead granted to respondent No.2, who is admittedly his biological daughter. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents could not meet the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The Family Court, after detailed discussion of the evidence, found that the applicant is the father of respondent No.2 and that she is suffering from physical and mental disability, is unmarried, and unable to maintain herself. Respondent No.3’s name had already 5 been deleted from the array of parties in view of objection that she is not the biological daughter of the applicant. 8. In so far as respondent No.1/wife is concerned, the applicant has placed reliance on the allegation of adultery. 9. From the submissions and the record, it is evident that the applicant does not wish to maintain respondent No.1 and instead has expressed willingness to give the entire maintenance amount to respondent No.2. 10. Taking into consideration the above facts and considering that respondent No.2 is admittedly the biological daughter of the applicant and suffers from disability, this Court finds it appropriate to partly allow the revision by modifying the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed with the following directions:- (i) The maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- per month, granted earlier to respondent No.1/wife by the Family Court in addition to Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2/daughter, shall now be payable entirely to respondent No.2. (ii) Accordingly, the applicant shall pay a total maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2/daughter from 01.09.2025. (iii) Other directions of the Family Court regarding mode of payment, date of deposit, and costs shall remain intact. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the certified copy of this order alongwith original record to the concerned Family Court 6 within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil