Mungeli, Chhattisgarh v. 1. Vishnu Tandan S/o Sahasram Tandan Aged About 43 Years
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36485 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 325 of 2024 1. Smt. Shashi Tandan W/o Vishnu Tandan Aged About 41 Years (Presently About 46 Years) R/o Village Majgaonpara, Mungeli, Presently Residing At Daupara, Mungeli, P.S. And Tehsil Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Deepali D/o Vishnu Tandan Aged About 18 Years (Presently About 23 Years) R/o Village Majgaonpara, Mungeli, Presently Residing At Daupara, Mungeli, P.S. And Tehsil Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus 1. Vishnu Tandan S/o Sahasram Tandan Aged About 43 Years (Presently About 48 Years) Caste Satnami, R/o Majgaonpara, Mungeli, P.S. And Tehsil Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2. Dharmesh S/o Vishnu Tandan Aged About 15 Years (Presently About 20 Years) Caste Satnami, R/o Village Majgaonpara, Mungeli, Presently Residing At Daupara, Mungeli, P.S. And Tehsil Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3. Harsh Tandan S/o Vishnu Tandan Aged About 13 Years (Presently About 18 Years) Caste Satnami, R/o Village Majgaonpara, Mungeli, Presently Residing At Daupara, Mungeli, P.S. And Tehsil Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicants For respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. : Mr. Sourabh Mahant, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anuragh Mishra, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.29 19:34:32 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.07.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants as well as Mr. Sourabh Mahant, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Anurag Mishra, learned counsel, for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “A. Set aside the order dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by Family Court Mungeli in Misc. Criminal Case No. 73/2023 to the extent it rejects the claim of petitioners for maintenance and the same be suitably modified granting amount of maintenance as claimed in the application under Section 125 in favour of petitioners. B. Grant the amount of maintenance from the date of application along with interest.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicants, along with respondent Nos. 2 and 3, have filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, claiming maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.1 and Rs. 7,000/- per month each for applicant No.2 and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, amounting to a total of Rs. 31,000/- per month from respondent No.1, inter alia, on the ground that applicant No.1 and respondent No.1 got married in the year 1998 as per Hindu rites and rituals. From their wedlock, one daughter and two sons were born. After three years of marriage, respondent No.1 and his family members started harassing applicant No.1, alleging that she had not brought a motorcycle and Rs. 1 3 lakh in dowry, and further demanded Rs. 5 lakh, stating that only then she would be allowed to stay in the matrimonial home. Consequently, applicant No.1 started residing with her parents. Respondent No.1 is employed as a teacher in a government school, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/-, and also owns 5 acres of agricultural land from which he earns an additional income of Rs. 5,00,000/- annually. As such, the applicants, having no source of income, claimed maintenance. 4. The respondent No.1 filed his reply to the applicants’ application and prayed for its rejection. It has been alleged by respondent No.1 that applicant No.1 voluntarily chose to reside separately from her in-laws in a rented house and is staying with her parents by her own wish. It was further alleged that applicant No.1 has threatened and harassed him, taking undue advantage of the fact that her father is in the police department. It was also stated that applicant No.1 is a graduate, her father and both her brothers are in government service, and applicant No.2 earns from a part-time job and financially assists her mother. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the maintenance application. 5. Learned Family Court, on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, proceeded without framing any issue regarding whether applicant No.1 had sufÏcient reason to reside separately from respondent No.1, or whether the applicants were unable to maintain themselves, or whether respondent No.1, despite having sufÏcient means, was neglecting to maintain the applicants. Learned Family Court, without appreciating the material on record, and merely on the basis of the pleadings and the fact that the marriage took place 20 years ago and that the applicant No.1 and respondent No.1 separated only thereafter, doubted the case of applicant No.1. Ignoring the admitted fact of a police 4 complaint, the Court concluded that no harassment had been committed by respondent No.1, solely on the ground that no independent witness other than family members was examined. 6. Learned Family Court, contrary to the record, came to the conclusion that applicant No.1 failed to prove that she had sufÏcient cause to live separately from respondent No.1 and accordingly rejected her claim for maintenance. Even with respect to applicant No.2, maintenance was denied merely on the ground that she had attained majority—contrary to the settled position of law, where a daughter’s claim for maintenance cannot be rejected solely on the ground of attaining majority. 7. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the settled position of law, has been passed by ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case, and has merely awarded an amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, the present petition is being filed. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the fact that the applicants do not have any independent source of income sufÏcient for their support. Learned Family Court acted arbitrarily and capriciously while passing the impugned order and failed to consider that the applicants were living separately due to the harassment caused by respondent No.1. He submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that the application was preferred by the applicants due to the neglect by respondent No.1, and even from the evidence on record, it was evident that no effort was made by respondent No.1 to bring the family back together; rather, he filed an application for divorce. Learned Family Court erred in rejecting the application of the applicants merely on the ground that the marriage was solemnized more 5 than twenty years ago. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that respondent No.1, despite having sufÏcient sources of income, is not discharging his obligation to provide maintenance to the applicants. Learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicants are legally entitled to receive maintenance according to the status of respondent No.1. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions and prayers made by learned counsel for the applicants. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has awarded maintenance Rs. 4,000/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. However, the application for grant of maintenance to applicant No. 1 was rejected on the ground that applicant No. 1 is living separately from respondent No. 1 without sufÏcient cause. The maintenance application for applicant No. 2 was rejected on the ground that she has attained majority. The Court's observations regarding the income, social and economic status of both parties, and the current price index, cannot be said to be on the lower side. 12. Considering the submission 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the 6 impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek