Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40574 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 266 of 2024 Gendram S/o Chhatram Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kutra, Tahsil- Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN versus ... Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Purnima Yadav W/o Gendram Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Kutra, At Present Resident Of Afrid, Police Station And Tahsil- Saragaon, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Family Court Janjgir, District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.489/2022, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the 2 respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision according to wife are that after her marriage, when she went to her matrimonial home, the applicant and his parents harassed her both physically and mentally on the ground that she had not brought a refrigerator and a motorcycle in dowry, and they did not give her food and drink. The respondent endured this treatment in the hope that their behavior would improve. After five months, the applicant and his parents, after mutual consultation, called the respondent’s parents over the phone and told them, if they did not give a motorcycle and refrigerator in dowry, then take your daughter back. The respondent and her parents replied that they were poor and unable to give such items. Upon this refusal, the respondent was driven out of the applicant’s house, and since then she has been compelled to live at her parental home. While the respondent was staying at her parental home, some people from the community spoke about a possible settlement of the matter. The respondent stated that she would be willing to live with the applicant if he treated her with love. However, when the matter was being documented before the Tahsildar Court at Janjgir, the applicant continued to demand dowry and even began to assault her in the court premises. The conduct of the applicant and his parents towards the applicant and her family was not proper. The respondent is unable to work, is dependent on the applicant, and 3 faces difficulty even for food and sustenance. She has no source of income and has been weakened by the harassment of the applicant. The applicant is a healthy man who works both as a mason and also undertakes contract work, earning approximately Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per month. In addition, he owns 3.00 acres of double-crop agricultural land in Village Kutra, from which he earns an income of about Rs. 2,25,000/- per year based on the per quintal yield. Therefore, the respondent has filed the present application seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the respondent. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties had directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 02.01.2024 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, as the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent left the applicant’s house of her own accord and has been living separately without reasonable cause despite the applicant’s repeated efforts and willingness to keep her and perform his matrimonial obligations. The Court overlooked that the non-applicant used to misbehave with the applicant and his family members, became angry over petty domestic matters, and pressurized the applicant to live separately from his family, which he refused; hence, without justification, she left her matrimonial 4 home and has been residing at her parental house, making her not entitled to any maintenance. 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 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that it has been established that applicant and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife, furthermore, the respondent has lodged a complaint regarding dowry harassment before the competent authority, and the matter is pending before the competent court. It is thus clear that the respondent is living separately from the applicant for sufficient reasons. Moreover, the respondent has no independent source of income and is entirely unable to maintain herself, while the applicant, though no revenue records were produced to prove ownership of 3 acres of agricultural land, has admitted to working as a laborer and is financially more capable than the respondent. 5 Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the respondent is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher 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