Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Basanti Bai W
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40561 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 389 of 2024 Vijay Kumar S/o Binjhwar Singh Uike Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Salhejalhal, District Rajnandgaon, At Present Posted As Hostel Superintendent Gotatola, Tahsil Mohla, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Basanti Bai W/o Vijay Kumar Uike Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kaljua, Tahsil Mohla, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice
Arguments
: Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate.. For Respondent : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “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 the be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 (Annexure ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.14 11:11:38 +0530 2 A-1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent/wife and son of the husband before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), claiming maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month each from the applicant/husband. It was pleaded, inter alia, in the application that the marriage between the husband and wife was solemnized on 18.05.2012 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Supela, Bhilai, according to Vaidik rituals, and out of their wedlock one male child, namely Harshit Kumar, was born. It was further alleged that due to cruelty and ill-treatment by the husband and his family members, she was forced to leave the matrimonial house and is presently residing at her father’s house. She stated that she is unable to maintain herself, whereas the husband is working as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, earning a salary of Rs. 15,000/- and also generating income from agricultural land. On these grounds, she prayed for maintenance for herself and the son. 4. The husband filed his reply, denying all the adverse allegations made against him, and submitted that the wife, without sufÏcient reason, left his company and is presently residing at her father’s house. He further submitted that on several earlier occasions, she had also left the matrimonial home, but he brought her back. He alleged that the wife had filed a false criminal complaint against him and his parents, whereas their marriage was a love marriage and there was no occasion for him or his family members to demand dowry from her or her family. He contended that false statements were made by her in the application. The applicant further submitted that the wife was unwilling to do household work, valued her liberty excessively, and after the birth of their son, declared that she would no longer do household chores and would only take care 3 of the child. He stated that due to the problems created by the wife, a village meeting was convened in the presence of her father, but she refused to live amicably with him. He further submitted that the wife, without any reason, left his house along with all her articles and clothes, in the company of her mother, during his absence. Despite the villagers advising her to wait for his return, she left. The husband also stated that he was still willing to keep his wife and child with him, but due to the cruelty meted out by the wife, he had filed a petition for divorce. He prayed for dismissal of the maintenance application. 5. The learned Magistrate, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, vide order dated 17.02.2021 (Annexure A-2), rejected the wife’s claim for maintenance but allowed maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month for the son. 6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2021, the wife preferred a revision before the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, and the learned Revisional Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, vide impugned order dated 13.03.2024, allowed the revision filed by the wife and directed the husband to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and passed without proper consideration of the facts and evidence of the case, it is liable to be set-aside or reduced. Learned Revisional Court failed to appreciate that the wife, without any sufÏcient reason, left the husband’s house. He submits that learned Revisional Court failed to appreciate that the marriage between the husband and wife was the result of a love affair between them, and they were married at Arya 4 Samaj Mandir of their own free will and consent, after a long period of acquaintance and understanding each other. Therefore, there was no occasion to inflict any cruelty or ill-treatment upon the wife for the demand of dowry. Since the wife filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on false grounds, the learned trial court rightly rejected her claim for maintenance. He further submits that learned Revisional Court ought to have considered that the wife, without any sufÏcient reason, left the company of the husband as she did not wish to do any household work. She left the house in the absence of her husband and father-in-law, taking all her articles and clothes, with the intention of not returning. For this reason, she is not entitled to maintenance. He also submits that learned Revisional Court ought to have considered that the wife could not prove her allegation of cruelty, and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. He also submits that learned trial court rightly concluded that the wife, out of her own will and without any sufÏcient reason, is living separately, and therefore she is not entitled to any kind of maintenance. The impugned order dated 13.03.2024 suffers from illegality, impropriety, and lack of proper appreciation of facts and circumstances, it is liable to be set aside. Since the wife, without sufÏcient reason, is living separately and is not willing to reside with her husband, she is not entitled to any kind of maintenance. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the 5 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