1 - Ravi Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Vishnu Prasad Agrawal Aged About 44 v. 1 - Savitri Agrawal W/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:9832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 272 of 2025 1 - Ravi Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Vishnu Prasad Agrawal Aged About 44 Years R/o Ramnagar Baloda Tah. Baloda District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) (Non Applicant) … Applicant (s) versus 1 - Savitri Agrawal W/o Shri Ravi Kumar Agrawal Aged About 36 Years R/o Baloda Tah. Baloda District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) (Applicants) 2 - Hrinika Agrawal D/o Ravi Kumar Agrawal Aged About 15 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Savitri Agrawal ) R/o Baloda Tah. Baloda District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 3 - Tinku Agrawal S/o Ravi Kumar Agrawal Aged About 13 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Savitri Agrawal ) R/o Baloda Tah. Baloda District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 4 - Shruti Agrawal D/o Ravi Kumar Agrawal Aged About 8 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Savitri Agrawal ) R/o Baloda Tah. Baloda District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma 27/02/2025 Order on Board 2 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Sections 438 & 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 14.01.2025 passed by the Principle Judge Family Court Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, in M.Cr.C. No. 290/2023. 2. The case of prosecution in nutshell is that the marriage between the applicant/husband and non-applicant No. 1/wife was solemnized on June 6, 2007, with the consent of both families, according to Hindu rituals and customs at the Arya Samaj Temple in Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). Subsequently, they cohabited until November 26, 2022, and are currently living separately. The non-applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance, and she consented to marriage due to his threats. The non- applicant/wife alleged that the applicant/husband is cruel, citing instances of physical and emotional abuse, including forcing her to undergo an abortion. She also claimed that he mistreated his own father, who later died. The non- applicant/wife completed class 12, while the applicant/husband studied up to class 8 and is a registered A-5 class contractor. The applicant/husband is a habitual drinker, has extramarital affairs, and associates with prostitutes. As a result, he became increasingly cruel towards 3 non-applicants. Despite this, she stayed with him to preserve their marital life. However, on November 26, 2022, the applicant/husband, while intoxicated, physically assaulted their minor children and attempted to harm them with a knife. The non-applicant/wife called the police and left her matrimonial home. She alleged that the applicant/husband's excessive drinking and questionable character adversely affected their children, prompting her to leave the marital home. The applicant/husband filed an application for dissolution of marriage. In response, the non-applicant/wife filed maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Applicant/husband had previously secured contracts worth over 50 crores. Given his financial capacity, the non- ₹ applicant/wife and their minor children are entitled to ₹ 30,000 per month as maintenance. The applicant/husband responded to the notice, denying that he and the non- applicant/wife had a marriage ceremony under Hindu rituals and customs. Applicant claimed that they were in a live-in relationship due to their love affair, resulting in the birth of their children. The applicant/husband alleged that the non- applicant/wife mistreated him during his illness, calling him a beggar and physically assaulting him with her siblings. He claimed she took his property documents and left him 3-4 years ago. The applicant/husband said to currently 4 unemployed, financially dependent on others, and denied the non-applicant/wife's allegations about his character and physical health. 3. On appreciation of the material/evidence available, learned family Court has allowed the maintenance application of the respondents and directed the present applicant/husband to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to non- applicant No. 1 to 4 i.e. Rs.20,000/- as maintenance. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned order passed by the Family court is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover the applicant has purchased a land in the name of non-applicant/wife which is presently in possession of her. The counsel for applicant/husband submits that the non-applicant wife lives separately without sufficient reason, making her ineligible for maintenance. The Family Court awarded maintenance at an excessively high rate, disregarding the applicant/husband's financial circumstances. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband further contended that the Family Court framed a single issue and decided it in favor of the non- applicants. However, the Court overlooked crucial facts, including: Non-applicant No. 3, Tinku, resides with the applicant/husband. The applicant/husband's ill health 5 renders him unable to work, prompting him to transfer his license to a relative. This relative secures tenders and maintains income tax records, paying the applicant/husband ₹ 5,000-7,000 for holding the license. Hence he pleads to allow this criminal revision and set aside the impugned order dated 14.01.2025 and reduce the maintenance allowed by the concerned Family Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused documents available on record and particularly the impugned order passed by the concerned Family courts with utmost circumspection. 6. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that present applicant is the husband of the non-applicant No.1 and they both have three children. It is evident from the records that the applicant/husband is A-5 class contractor. The non-applicant No.1/wife is living separately with her mother and children on the ground that the applicant has left them and was torturing her on the ground of dowry. After filing of the divorce case by the husband/applicant, she has filed an application under section 125 CrPC. 7. So far as the question of responsibility of the respondents is concerned, it is but obvious that respondent no. 1/wife, respondent no. 2, 3 & 4/children are surely 6 entitled to receive the maintenance, as they are receiving education and are growing children, hence non-applicants need money in every sphere of their life. 8. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that Learned Judge, Family Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh has not committed any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in allowing the maintenance application of present non- applicants. So far as the possibility of reduction in maintenance is concerned, the applicant is A-5 Class contractor and as per record he himself admitted the fact before family court that for the last five years his turnover was about ten crores seventy one lakhs, therefore, it is clearly ruled out as the amount of maintenance granted to the respondents cannot said to be on a higher side, hence it is just and proper and needs no interference of this Court. 9. With these observation(s), the instant revisions being devoid of merits and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to cost(s). Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Saxena