Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36868 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 360 of 2024 Yugal Sahu S/o Kalyan Das, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Anjora, Police Station Somani, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Chitrarekha Sahu W/o Yugal Sahu, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sankara, Post Kapsada, Police Station Kumhari, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Non-applicant : None present Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29.07.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the non-applicant on repeated calls. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that it was pleaded inter-alia in the 2 application by the wife that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28-04-1999 and after the marriage, she resided with the husband and out of their wedlock, the parties have two children. It is pleaded that after the marriage, the husband used to harass the wife and in the year 2007, the husband was in influence of alcohal took her to Railway Line to kill her, from where she ran away and it was also pleaded that due to the harassment, she is residing with the parents and on 02-08-2009, there was community meeting, wherein an agreement was written between the parties, where the husband admitted assault and illicit relation and apologized his mistake, thereafter few days again the husband started harassment on which report was made on 30-03-2011 but no action was taken by the police and even a notice was sent by the wife to the husband through advocate, after which he again apologized. It was pleaded that the husband has illicit relation with another lady and he harass her and he on 16-05-2018, assaulted her by spade. It was pleaded that she is residing at her parents house due to the harassment and on 23-05-2018, she made complaint to the Mahila Thana, where report under Section 155 of CrPC was given on 09-06-2018. It was pleaded that earlier she filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC at Family Court Durg, in which compromised took place on 25-03-2019 and the matter was closed, but the husband did not made affords to take her back and he denied to keep her. It was pleaded that the husband is working at Veterinary College Anjora and earns Rs.20,000/- per month and he also has earning from 3 agricultural land, thus she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the applicant/husband sought maintenance amount upto Rs. 10,000/-. 4. The applicant/husband filed his written statement and pleaded that his wife left the house without sufÏcient reason and she made false complaint and compromise took place earlier on 25-03-2019 in a proceeding under Section 125 of CrPC, but the wife thereafter refused to join the husband. It was pleaded that on 19-04-2019, he went to her village along with elders of the family, but he willfully refused. It was pleaded that he want to keep her but the wife do not want to reside with him. It was pleaded that the wife is earning lady earning Rs.6000/- and husband is earning Rs.5000/- by which he take care of his old parents and he has only 0.405 acres of agricultural land, thus prayed for rejection of application. 5. The learned Family Court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC, awarding maintenance the to tune of Rs.2,500/- per month to the wife. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the wife questioned the character of husband and thereby she commit cruelty over the husband and is therefore not entitled for claiming maintenance. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that earlier under Section 125 of Cr.P.C was filed by the wife, in which compromise took place between the parties, but the wife refused to resides with the husband, thought efforts were made by the husband to bring her 4 back and further failed to appreciate that the husband has no source of income and he is to lookafter his old parents and even the wife has failed to prove the income of husband. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that wife made false complaint against the husband over which, no action was taken by the police due to the fault of wife. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the marriage is of 28-04-1999 and there are two children and the wife has been residing separately without sufÏcient reason and therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance. Accordingly, the learned Family Court has passed the maintenance amount in higher side without considering the evidence of monthly income of the applicant. Therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicant has succeeded in proving her application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, monthly income of the applicant and other expenses, the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to the non-applicant as maintenance, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to the non-applicant, I am of 5 the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. 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. Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Kunal