Durg, Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Garima Sahu W
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:31296 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 182 of 2021 Danny @ Devkumar Sahu S/o - Kunwar Singh Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o- Near Saja Mandir, Village- Jevra Sirsa, P.S.- Jevra Sirsa, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Garima Sahu W/o - Danny @ Devkumar Sahu Aged About 21 Years Presently Residing At - Behind Karma Bal Mandir, Supela Bhilai, Tehsil And District - Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08.07.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the judgment dated 20.01.2021 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 91/2019 be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of applicant and the non- applicant was solemnized on 20.04.2018 in District Durg as per Hindu 2 customs and rituals. At the time of marriage, the non-applicant’s parents, according to their financial capacity, gave dowry items including a cupboard, mattress, quilt, divan, dressing table, cooler, complete kitchen utensils, jewelry, two silver waistbands, a key chain, gold earrings, anklets, toe rings, a ring and clothes for the groom, as well as clothes for the bride and guests. After the non-applicant went to her matrimonial home, from the second or third day of the marriage itself, the behavior of her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, elder brother-in- law, father-in-law, and the applicant turned cruel towards her. The applicant and his family members used to insult her by finding faults in the dowry items and verbally abused her parents using indecent language. When the non-applicant objected, the applicant slapped her on the second day of the marriage. The non-applicant informed her father about the incident, to which her father advised her that such things may happen in the beginning of married life and everything would eventually settle down. However, as the cruelty from the applicant and his family members became unbearable, on 28.09.2018, the non-applicant’s father visited her matrimonial home and tried to discuss the matter with the applicant and his family. During this discussion, the applicant and his family members started abusing and attempted to assault her father. A complaint regarding the said incident was lodged by the non- applicant’s father at Police Outpost Jewra Sirsa on the same date (28.09.2018). Despite this, the non-applicant, with the intention of saving her matrimonial life and hoping for a change in the behavior of her in-laws, continued to stay at her matrimonial home and somehow managed her daily life. However, the physical and mental harassment 3 by the applicant and his family increased day by day. The applicant and his father used to assault the non-applicant after consuming alcohol, due to which the non-applicant was forced to return to her parental home on 26.10.2018. Since then, she has been residing with her parents. A complaint regarding the beating and harassment was also lodged by the non-applicant at the Jewra Sirsa Police Outpost on 28.10.2018. Since then, the applicant has not made any inquiries about the non-applicant nor has he made any efforts to maintain her. The non-applicant is a housewife and is unable to earn any income, whereas the applicant works at a rice mill and earns approximately ₹15,000/- per month. Therefore, due to lack of financial hardship, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance amount of Rs. 7000/- per month and further ₹5,000/- as litigation expenses. 3. The applicant filed a reply to the application filed by the non-applicant under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 denying the averments of the non-applicant. The applicant herein specifically pleaded that the he is a daily wager and earns Rs. 5000/- per month. The applicant also stated that the non-applicant left the house of the applicant without any reason and without informing the applicant or any of his family members. The non-applicant recorded her statement on afÏdavit under Order 18 Rule 04 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and has categorically stated in the cross-examination that she did not tell to anyone about the factum of cruelty except her father. She has also stated that the applicant used to give all the money to his father and not her. It has categorically been stated by the non-applicant that 4 she left the house without telling to anyone and has received all the items that her family gave to her during her wedding. The father of the non-applicant has also stated that no document regarding the salary of the applicant has been submitted by them. The applicant in his deposition before the Court has categorically stated that he earns Rs. 5000/- per month as he works as daily wager. The non-applicant always used to ask for huge amount money from the applicant and when refused the same, the non-applicant left the house of the applicant without informing the applicant. The applicant has categorically in his cross-examination denied all the allegations of cruelty. 4. After considering the pleadings and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. whereby it was directed the applicant to pay maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 2500/- per month to the non-applicant. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the factum that the applicant is a daily wager. He further submits that the non-applicant/wife did not have sufÏcient reasons to leave the house of the applicant. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court ought to have appreciated the financial position of the applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that it was the non-applicant wife who used to demand the money from the applicant and on his inability to the amount she left the house without informing anyone. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 5 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 7000/- and further litigation proceedings of Rs. 5000/- Upon appreciation of the facts, evidence and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicant on the ground that the non- applicant /wife is living separately due to sufÏcient reasons. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Chief Justice Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Kunal