Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:45142 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 348 of 2018 1. Smt. Anita Ram W/o Prabhat Kumar Ram Aged About 46 Years R/o Near Sheetla Mandir, Indira Colony, Tarbahar (Above Radhika Dairy), P.S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2. Neelam Ram D/o Prabhat Kumar Ram Aged About 20 Years R/o Near Sheetla Mandir, Indira Colony, Tarbahar (Above Radhika Dairy), P.S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3. Minor Pramendra Victor S/o Prabhat Kumar Ram Aged About 10 Years Applicant No. 3 Is Minor Through Through The Natural Guardian Mother
Legal Reasoning
Namely Smt. Anita Ram Applicant No. 1, R/o Near Sheetla Mandir, Indira Colony, Tarbahar (Above Radhika Dairy), P. S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Prabhat Kumar Ram S/o Late J. Victor Ram Aged About 66 Years Retired Navy OfÏcer, R/o Near Sheetla Mandir, Indira Colony, Tarbahar (Above Radhika Dairy), P. S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.09.2025 Order on Board 1. 2. Heard Mr. Aman Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.04 12:13:31 +0530 2 “1. Direct the learned Family Court to grant maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month in favour of the applicant No. 1 2. Direct the learned Family Court to enhance the maintenance amount in favour of the applicant No. 2 & 3 from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- each. 3.Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the applicants.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, the applicant No. 2 was accepted by the respondent as a daughter, and the applicant No. 3 is the legitimate son of the respondent. As per the pleadings of the applicants, the respondent was married to applicant No. 1 in the Arya Samaj Mandir on 20.08.2003, and after the marriage, they resided together as husband and wife. However, due to the mental and physical harassment caused by the respondent, the applicants were compelled to live separately, and the respondent willfully and deliberately neglected to maintain them. For this reason, the applicants moved an application seeking grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 20,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 15,000/- each to applicants No. 2 and 3. The applicants pleaded that they have no source of income for their livelihood, whereas the respondent has a monthly income of Rs. 1,11,800/- from pension, house rent, agriculture, and fishery. 4. Per contra, the respondent filed a reply denying the pleadings made by the applicants, contending that applicant No. 1 is leading an adulterous life and that he is already taking care of applicants No. 2 and 3. Therefore, according to him, the applicants are not entitled to any maintenance. 3 5. In support of the pleadings, applicant No. 1 examined herself as AW-1, and the respondent examined himself as NAW-1 and also produced two other witnesses in support of his pleadings, namely NAW-2 Anurag Nathanial and NAW-3 Dr. Alfred Abraham. 6. After recording the evidence of the witnesses and considering the facts and material available on record, the learned Family Court came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the respondent regarding the character of applicant No. 1 appear to be credible. Therefore, applicant No. 1 was held not entitled to any maintenance, whereas applicants No. 2 and 3 were held entitled to maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- each per month. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record; therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. He submits that as per the facts and evidence available on record, it is crystal clear that applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, but the learned Family Court failed to consider the same before denying maintenance to her. Hence, the impugned order, insofar as it relates to applicant No. 1, is perverse. There is no cogent or reliable evidence on record casting any doubt upon the character of applicant No. 1, yet the learned Family Court has wrongly and arbitrarily held that her character is suspicious. He further submits that the respondent has failed to prove the allegations made against applicant No. 1 regarding her character, but without any evidence, the learned Family Court has recorded erroneous findings in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the impugned order. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. He also submits that as per the facts and evidence on record, it is further evident that the monthly income of the respondent is Rs. 1,11,800/-, whereas the 4 applicants have no source of income. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to maintenance; however, the learned Family Court has wrongly rejected the claim of applicant No. 1. Learned Family Court has granted an inadequate amount of maintenance in favour of applicants No. 2 and 3; hence, the same is liable to be enhanced. The respondent has refused to maintain the applicants without any just or sufÏcient reason, and therefore, he is liable to pay maintenance to the applicants. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. 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 the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants. The Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- each applicant No. 2 and 3. However, the application for grant of maintenance to applicant No. 1 was rejected by the Family Court. The Court considered the income, social, and economic status of both parties and the current price index, and the award cannot be said to be on the lower side. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Abhishek Sd/- (RameshSinha) Chief Justice