Bemetara, Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Anusuiya Dubey W
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 271 of 2023 Girdhar Dubey S/o Bodhan Prasad Dubey Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Kurda, Tahsil- Thankhamhariya, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Anusuiya Dubey W/o Girdhar Dubey Aged About 55 Years D/o Makhan Prasad Dubey, R/o Village Kurda, Tahsil- Thankhamhariya, District : Bemetara, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.24 11:09:30 +0530 Chhattisgarh For Applicant For Respondent 22.07.2025 ... Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Vikas Bajpai, Advocate. Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Bajpai, learned counsel, appearing for the the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sameer Singh, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and the impugned order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, 2 Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) may kindly be set- aside, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the applicant seeking grant of maintenance, claiming that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant. It is respectfully submitted by the present applicant that it is an undisputed fact between the parties that they entered into wedlock 35 years ago, and due to their wedlock, three children were born, out of which only two are alive. It is further an undisputed fact that their eldest son died of a medical ailment at the age of seven years. The respondent has stated in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that after some time of marriage, the applicant started subjecting her to cruelty by abusing her in filthy language and assaulting her. It is further alleged that the applicant was suspicious of the character of the respondent and used to tell her to leave his house. It is alleged that even upon the death of her father and mother, she was not allowed to return due to quarrels with the applicant, and it was also alleged that the applicant did not perform the last rites of his mother. It is further alleged that due to the quarrels caused by the applicant, the respondent has been suffering from high blood pressure and diabetes for the last ten years. The applicant allegedly threw the respondent out of the house ten years ago, after which she lived with her son for about seven years. Meanwhile, the son of the respondent moved to Bhilai after entering into a second marriage with a woman from another caste, due to which the respondent started residing with her daughter and son-in-law for about three years. It is further stated that 17 years ago, the present applicant accepted his fault and took his wife back to his village, Kurda, where they lived together for about seven years. It is further alleged that 3 the applicant has illicit relationships with two women in the village (names of these women are mentioned in the impugned order sheet). It is further alleged by the respondent that the present applicant refused to buy her medicines for blood pressure and diabetes, and upon the ensuing dispute, the respondent approached the Women’s Cell and filed a written complaint, where the applicant refused to keep the respondent with him during counseling and also refused to provide any expenditure. It is alleged that the applicant is not providing her maintenance despite her undergoing treatment at Vardhman Hospital, Durg, for the last seven years. It is further stated that the respondent is unable to maintain herself as she has no source of income, while on the other hand, the present applicant is a person having sufÏcient means. It is stated that the present applicant has two houses at Village Kurda and Kohadia and earns Rs. 50,000/- during the Pitru Paksha. It is further stated that he earns Rs. 5,100/- for giving advice regarding borewell digging and also earns Rs. 30,000-35,000/- from performing religious rituals in villagers’ houses. It is further stated that the present applicant has agricultural land at Villages Achua, Kohadiya, and Gatapar and earns Rs. 5 lakhs per year from it. It is also stated that the applicant earns Rs. 1-2 lakhs from conducting Bhagwat Katha. It is further stated that the applicant has sufÏcient means, has purchased a new car, and also holds insurance policies. It was prayed by the respondent before the Family Court that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month may kindly be awarded as maintenance. 4. Upon service of notice by the learned Family Court, the applicant appeared and filed a reply before the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) on 28.01.2023, stating that the respondent does not wish to live with him, and therefore, she is making false allegations against him. It was further stated that she herself used to leave the house 4 of the applicant and went to live with her son or daughter and that she herself refused to visit her parental house upon the death of her father and mother. The applicant stated that upon the death of his mother, due to a dispute with the respondent, the last rites were performed by his son, Santosh Dubey, as the applicant was not living with the respondent at that time, and they were residing at Village Khamhariya. The applicant further stated that he helped his son open a manure and seed shop and also performed the marriage of his daughter. It was further stated that the applicant provided financial assistance to his daughter and son-in-law. It was also stated that the respondent does not have any medical ailments and that the applicant has discharged all his liabilities honestly and sincerely, providing 25% of his income to his wife. The applicant claimed that he is a poor Brahmin who performs religious rituals in villagers’ homes and has no other source of income. It was further stated that the respondent left his house without any valid reason and only to harass the applicant, has filed the present application for maintenance on false and fabricated grounds. The applicant, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly be rejected. 5. Learned Family Court referred the parties for mediation before the Advisor, Family Court, Bemetara, where the mediation failed. Thereafter, the learned Family Court framed as many as four issues to decide the matter. The learned Family Court, after recording evidence from both parties, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 16.02.2023, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 27.12.2022, as maintenance, and was further directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards the expenses of the proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 5 16.02.2023 passed by the learned Presiding OfÏcer, Family Court, Bemetara, District Bemetara, is bad in law, illegal, perverse, and contrary to law, and therefore deserves to be set aside. Learned trial Court has erred in law and on facts while passing the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside. He submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that the respondent/non-applicant is residing separately without any sufÏcient reason. The respondent was residing with the present applicant but is now residing separately of her own will and without any sufÏcient reason, and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance amount. Learned Family Court erred in appreciating the actual income of the present applicant and failed to consider that the applicant has discharged his liabilities towards the marriage of his children and has also helped them financially, and that he is presently aged about 57 years, due to which he is unable to earn more money. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court suffers from material irregularities and is contrary to the facts available on record, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. The means of maintenance were not properly adjudicated by the learned Family Court, and the applicant has been placed under an obligation contrary to the intention of the provisions for maintenance, which necessitates the quashing of the impugned order. He further submits that the present applicant is unemployed and is dependent on performing religious rituals in the homes of his yajmans (villagers). Due to his old age, he is now unable to devote much time to his work, as a result of which he has lost his earning capacity and is unable to earn sufÏcient income. Thus, it is clear that he has no substantial source of income and is unable to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent. However, he is willing to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- per 6 month, as he earns only Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month. He also submits that the learned Family Court erred in directing the present applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent, ignoring the fact that the respondent has refused to lead a happy married life with the present applicant and is residing with her daughter without any sufÏcient reason. Therefore, she is not entitled to any amount of
Decision
maintenance, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside/quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice