Surajpur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Sapna Urf Safiya Begum W/o Farukh Abdullah Aged About 30 Years
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:12543 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 934 of 2025 Farukh Abdulla S/o Sekh Abdulla Aged About 40 Years R/o Vishrampur, In Front of F.C.I. Warehouse, Near Railway Station, Police Station Jainagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Sapna Urf Safiya Begum W/o Farukh Abdullah Aged About 30 Years (Currently 41 Years), R/o Vishrampur, In Front Of F. C. I. Warehouse, Near Railway Station, P.S.- Jainagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.), H. M. Thakurdiya, P.S.- Kharsiya, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 2 - Naba- Shekh Asif S/o Farukh Abdullah Aged About 9 Years (Currently 20 Years), R/o Vishrampur In Front Of F. C. I. Warehouse, Near Railway Station, Police Station- Jainagar, District- Surapur (C.G.), Haal Mukam- Currently Staying With Petitioner/ Applicant ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Syed Mohammad Sohail Afzal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/03/2025 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) in MJC No.05/2015, whereby the application under Section 125 2 of the CrPC filed by the respondents has been allowed and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondents as a maintenance. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 was solemnized in the year 2004-05. From the wedlock, Respondent No. 2 (son) was born, who is now 20 years old. Due to certain matrimonial disputes, respondent No.1 left the petitioner's house, and a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC was filed by the Respondents. Vide order dated 19.12.2016, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharsia, Raigarh, directed the Petitioner to pay 2,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1 and 1,000/- per month ₹ ₹ to Respondent No. 2. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 19.12.2016 was passed considering that Respondent No. 2 was living with Respondent No. 1 and required financial assistance. However, Respondent No. 2 is now voluntarily residing with the Petitioner and is fully dependent upon the petitioner. Since the petitioner is already bearing all the expenses of his son/respondent No.2, no maintenance can be claimed by Respondent No. 1 for Respondent No. 2. He further contended that it is a settled principle that maintenance can only be awarded to a dependent party. When the dependent is no longer with the claimant, the order becomes unenforceable. It is further contended that Respondent No. 1 is also capable of earning her livelihood as she 3 is working in HDFC Bank as an agent. Respondent No. 1 left the house of her own will and also filed a case against the Petitioner and his parents under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was dismissed on merits. It is, therefore, prayed that the Court be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2016, passed in MJC No.5/2015 (ANNEXURE A-1). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned JMFC has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month (Rs.2,000/- for respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- for respondent No.2). 6. Sapna alias Safia Begum (PW-1) has fully accepted all the allegations of the application in her affidavit and stated that she was married to the present petitioner in the year 2004 and that she had a son, i.e., respondent No. 2, from the association with the petitioner. This witness has stated that the petitioner beat her up and tortured her for not getting dowry after marriage and threw her out of the house and kept the son with him. This witness has also stated respondent No.2 was obtained through a search warrant. This witness has stated that the petitioner has an income of Rs. 30,000/- per month. 4 7. The learned trial Court finds that the statements of the witness have remained unrebutted. The statements of this witness have been fully supported by witness Santoshi Mahant (PW 02). The statements of this witness have also remained unrebutted and the fact of marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1 is undisputed. The facts of the application are found to be proved from the above evidence. It is not shown that respondent No.1 has any source of income and respondent No.2 is shown to be a minor. It is also proved that respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner and respondent No.2 is his son, due to which it is the responsibility of the petitioner to maintain the respondents herein. There is no fact on record regarding respondent No.1 voluntarily living separately from the petitioner or living in a state of adultery. Also, there is no fact on record that respondent No.1 is living separately from the petitioner with mutual consent. Therefore, the respondents are found to be eligible to receive maintenance amount under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 8. Further, on perusal of the order under challenge, it is evident that the learned JMFC has discussed the factors while arriving at a finding is just and proper. From perusal of the same, it is evident that the petitioner and respondent No.1 were married according to their customs and it is alleged that due to the harassment by the petitioner, respondent No.1 had to reside separately. Thereafter, she is facing great hardships and is unable to maintain herself. Hence, the learned JMFC has rightly determined the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondents, therefore, in the opinion of 5 this Court that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 19.12.2016 (Annexure A-1). 9. Accordingly, the present CrMP being devoid of merit is liable to be and
Decision
is hereby dismissed and disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant