Nevra (Tilda), Dist. Raipur, C.G v. Smt. Surekha Sharma W
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40560 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 391 of 2024 Neelkanth Sharma S/o Shri Santosh Sharma Aged About 33 Years R/o Devri, Thana And Tahsil- Nevra (Tilda), Dist. Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant versus Smt. Surekha Sharma W/o Shri Neelkanth Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o Devri, Tahsil- Nevra (Tilda), Dist. Raipur, C.G. Present Address- Village- Latuwa, Tahsil- Balodabazar, Dist. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice
Arguments
: Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate.. For Respondent : Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated 29.02.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 209/2023 by the learned Family Court Balodabazar, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.14 11:11:37 +0530 2 Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) may kindly be set- aside and the application filed by the non-applicant wife may kindly be dismissed, in the interest of justice” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant took place with the respondent in the year 2011 as per customs, and out of the wedlock two girl children were born, namely Bharti, aged about 6 years, and Bhumika, aged about 3 years, who are currently residing with the applicant herein. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 17.08.2023 before the Family Court, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, with the averment that for about one year after marriage, the applicant and respondent resided together without any dispute. Thereafter, the applicant started harassing the respondent by consuming liquor and used to tell her to go to her maternal home, and when she went there, he would bring her back by promising not to repeat the same conduct, but again assaulted her after consuming liquor. The respondent, with the hope that the applicant’s behaviour would change, continued to reside with him for about 12 years; however, for the last two months, she has been residing at Village Latuwa with her sister and brother-in-law. It was further averred in the application that the applicant herein works as a labourer and undertakes seasonal work, from which he earns about Rs. 10,000/- per month, and that he has 1 acre of ancestral agricultural land from which he earns about Rs. 50,000/- per annum, along with Rs. 1,70,000/- from other sources. Therefore, the respondent prayed for Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance from the applicant herein. 4. Learned Family Court issued notice, and after receiving the same, the applicant herein filed his reply denying all the adverse allegations levelled against him. He stated that the respondent is not entitled to any 3 maintenance because she is residing separately without any reasonable cause at Balodabazar and works in a clothes shop from which she earns about Rs. 15,000/- per month. He further stated that she is also not willing to reside with her two daughters, who are currently with the applicant herein. The applicant further contended in his reply that, due to some personal dispute between the parties, a community meeting was held on 06.06.2023 in Village Devri, Tahsil Tilda, wherein it was decided that the respondent would not interfere in the life of the applicant and would not claim any maintenance from him, and accordingly a divorce deed/agreement was executed. He further stated that both daughters are residing with him and he is taking care of their livelihood, education, medical care, etc., and that at present he is unemployed and does not work anywhere, therefore he is not capable of paying maintenance to the respondent. The applicant further contended that the respondent herself left the applicant and their two daughters without any sufÏcient cause, and started residing with her sister and brother-in-law. He further stated that due to the poverty of the applicant, she did not adjust herself in the matrimonial home, and instead started working in a clothes shop, earning more than the applicant. 5. Learned Family Court framed as many as six issues and, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, recorded findings against the applicant. Relying upon the statement of the respondent, the learned Family Court held that the applicant is liable to maintain the respondent, and passed the impugned order of maintenance directing the applicant herein to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in passing the order granting maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month in favour of the respondent, despite the fact that the applicant has to 4 maintain himself and his two minor daughters, who were left by the respondent in the house of the applicant. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant is unemployed and does not work anywhere, and that the respondent herself left the applicant and his two minor daughters, aged about 6 years and 3 years respectively, without any sufÏcient cause, and is not willing to reside with them. He submits that learned Family Court failed to take into consideration that, in the community meeting held on 06.06.2023, the respondent herself decided to reside separately from the applicant as well as her two daughters, and did not make any effort to meet her daughters, which clearly shows that she is not interested in residing with the applicant and the children. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is a working woman, employed in a cloth shop from where she earns about Rs. 15,000/- per month, which is more than sufÏcient for her maintenance, particularly when the applicant is unemployed and has to maintain his two minor daughters. Learned Family Court did not properly consider and appreciate the reply filed by the applicant, nor did it take into account the contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses. He also submits that the impugned order is bad in law and cannot be legally sustained, as under the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., a wife is entitled to maintenance only when she is unable to maintain herself. In the present case, the respondent is a 30-year-old healthy woman, working in a cloth shop and capable of maintaining herself. She is living separately by choice, after leaving her daughters with the applicant, who is not in a position to take up employment while caring for both children. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the 5 applicant. 8. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by