Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40575 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 256 of 2024 1 - Aradhana Rajak W/o Shri Saroj Kumar Rajak, D/o Shri Nepal Lal Rajak Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Sivani (Naila), Police Chauki- AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Naila, Police Station And Tahsil - Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
2 - Tripti Rajak D/o Shri Saroj Kumar Rajak Aged About 8 Years Minor, Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Aradhna Rajak, Caste - Dhobi, R/o Village - Sivani (Naila), Police Chauki-Naila, Police Station And Tahsil - Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Girish Kumar Rajak S/o Shri Saroj Kumar Rajak Aged About 5 Years Minor, Through His Legal Guardian Mother Aradhana Rajak, Caste - Dhobi, R/o Village - Sivani (Naila), Police Chauki-Naila, Police Station And Tahsil - Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) versus ... Applicant(s) Saroj Kumar Rajak S/o Late Budhram Rajak Aged About 36 Years Caste - Dhobi, R/o Village Kapan, Police Chauki-Naila, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), At Present R/o C.R.P.F. (Constable G.D.) Camp Bharani, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12 /08/2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Janjgir, District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.36/2022, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000 per month to each of the applicants. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, their marriage having been solemnized on 08.02.2011 at Village Sivani, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) as per Hindu rites and customs, after the marriage, applicant No. 1 began residing in the matrimonial home and the couple were blessed with applicant Nos. 2 and 3. After a few months of peaceful married life, the respondent and his family members started subjecting applicant No. 1 to cruelty for demand of dowry, and in October 2016, the respondent drove her and the minor children out of the matrimonial house, demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- and gold ornaments from her parents. Thereafter, applicant No. 1 began residing at her parental home along with the minor children and made several attempts to resume cohabitation, but the respondent refused, consequently, she lodged a report at the concerned police station 3 and also filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 361/2016, and the matter was later settled between the parties. Subsequently, in September 2020, the respondent assaulted applicant No. 1, and upon the intervention of neighbors, she again returned to her parental home. The applicants thereafter filed another application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance. Upon issuance of notice, the respondent appeared, filed his reply, and denied the applicants’ pleadings; evidence was recorded on both sides, and after hearing, the learned court below partly allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to each applicant as maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), is bad in law, erroneous, and against the facts and circumstances of the case; the learned court below failed to properly appreciate that after a few months of marriage, the respondent and his family members subjected applicant No. 1 to cruelty for dowry, ultimately driving her and the minor applicants from the matrimonial home, giving them sufficient reason to live separately; further, the respondent’s salary slip shows an income of more than Rs. 40,000/- per month, making him fully capable of maintaining the applicants in accordance with 4 his standard of living; under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a wife and minor children are entitled to maintenance, and in this case applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife and applicants No. 2 and 3 are the minor children of the respondent; therefore, the amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month awarded to each applicant is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000 per month to each of the applicants observing that it has been established fact that the applicant No.1 and respondent are legally wedded wife and husband, furthermore, the applicant No.1 had successfully proved that she is living separately from the respondent for sufficient reason and is unable to maintain herself and her two children, therefore, the Family Court after considering the social and economical status of both the parties and current price index has concluded that the applicants are entitled to 5 maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil