Korba, Chhattisgarh v. 1. Sharda Singh D/o Late Antaryami Singh , W/o Manoj Kumar Singh Aged About
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 421 of 2021 Manoj Kumar Singh S/o Baikunthnath Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Mq 50, Shakti Nagar, Gevra , Police Station Dipka , Tehsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh, Currently Residing At Quarter No. C 98, Urja Nagar Gevra , Police Station Dipka , Tehsil Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Sharda Singh D/o Late Antaryami Singh , W/o Manoj Kumar Singh Aged About 43 Years Resident Of Mq 50, Shakti Nagar, Gevra, Police Station Dipka, Tehsil Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Aryavrat Singh S/o Manoj Kumar Singh Aged About 18 Years Resident Of Mq 50, Shakti Nagar, Gevra, Police Station Dipka, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba , Chhattisgarh. 3. Devrat Singh S/o Manoj Kumar Singh Aged About 13 Years Through Mother Sharda Singh , Resident Of Mq 50, Shakti Nagar, Gevra, Police Station Dipka, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba , Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.04 17:36:23 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.08.2025 Order on Board 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.03.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 50/2017, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application 2 under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.11,000/- per month to the respondent No.1, Rs. 9,000/- per month to respondent No.3 and the application for maintenance allowance filed on behalf of applicant No.2, Aryavrat Singh is rejected. 2. The facts, in brief, is that respondent No. 01 was married to the applicant on 25th April 2001. As a result of their union, two sons, Aryavrat Singh and Devvrat Singh, were born. The applicant belongs to a well-off family. His father was posted as the Chief Personnel Officer at S.E.C.L., and after his death, his elder son, Pramod Singh, was appointed to the company on compassionate grounds. He is currently serving as a Labour Officer at Chirmiri Colliery. From the time of marriage, the applicant and his family began taunting and harassing respondent No. 01 for dowry. The applicant used to say that if he had married another girl, he would have received a higher dowry. The applicant’s younger sister, Mrs. Rita Singh, used to instigate respondent No. 01's father by saying that the place where respondent No. 01 lived before marriage is where the family’s housemaid comes from, and she is only fit to be a maid. Respondent No. 01 endured all this, hoping that the applicant and his family would eventually change, but their behavior never improved. Respondent No. 01's parents, brothers, and other family members gave dowry according to their capacity, which included G7,00,000 in cash, a full set of gold and silver jewelry, a sofa set, furniture, an almirah, kitchen utensils, and appliances. This was because the applicant had demanded cash and household items as dowry before the marriage. The applicant was initially employed as a driver at the S.E.C.L. Gevra mine. His sister and her husband used to provoke him by saying that he was officer material and should not be working as a driver in S.E.C.L. Because of this, the applicant began 3 consuming alcohol and would come home drunk and fall asleep. If respondent No. 01 asked him to go to work, he would verbally abuse and physically assault her. The applicant is currently working as a dumper operator and earns approximately G60,000 per month. In addition, he has ancestral property, from which he earns an income of several lakhs through agriculture. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent No.1 (wife) is currently residing in the applicant’s allotted residence, and consequently, housing and other related expenses are being deducted directly from the applicant’s salary as per the established system in SECL. The learned Family Court committed a grave miscarriage of justice by allowing the respondent to produce documents before the Hon’ble Court on 17.03.2021 and subsequently passing the final order on 27.03.2021. It is submitted that the last defence witness was examined on 18.10.2019, whereas all the documents were filed by the respondent much later, on 17.03.2021. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant has already been paying an interim maintenance of G5,000/- per month to the respondent pursuant to an order dated 17.05.2018, passed in Case No. 39 of 2017, pending before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. The learned Family Court has erroneously awarded the said amount to the respondents without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 27.03.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in 4 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 50/2017, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.11,000/- per month to the respondent No.1, Rs. 9,000/- per month to respondent No.3 and the application for maintenance allowance filed on behalf of applicant No.2, Aryavrat Singh is rejected, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original record of this case be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice 5. 6. 7. 8. Preeti