Korba, Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Anuradha Sahu W
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:31444 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 382 of 2021 Vidyanand Sahu S/o Shyam Lal Sahu Aged About 33 Years Cast Teli, R/o Mohlainbhata Katghora, Thana And Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Anuradha Sahu W/o Vidyanand Sahu Aged About 31 Years Cast Teli, R/o Present Address Sarkari Dafai, Chhota Bazar Chirmiri, Thana And Tahsil Chirmiri, District Koria Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant For Non-applicant : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ramsajiwan, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision petition, the applicant prayed for following reliefs:- 1. “That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. 2 2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to alow this revision and further be pleased to set aside the order dated 04.02.2021 (annexure A/1) passed in the Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 130/2019. 3. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order in the favour of the applicant, as it may deem to fit and proper under the facts and circumstance of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant with the non-applicant was solemnized on 04-02-2018, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs at place Chirmiri. After the marriage, the non- applicant went to her matrimonial home located at Mohlain Bhatha, Katghora. The applicant was residing in a joint family with his parents, siblings, and other family members, with whom the non- applicant also stayed. For the initial 3–4 months, the behavior of the applicant was cordial. However, thereafter, the applicant and his family members collectively restricted her from meeting her parents or brothers. She was also not allowed to visit her parental home or talk to her family over the phone. Despite this, the non-applicant endured everything with the hope that the behavior of her in-laws would eventually improve. However, one day, while she was talking to her parents over the phone, the applicant threw her mobile phone and told her that if she wished to stay in the house, she must stop all contact with her parental family. The application further states that whenever the non-applicant used to visit her parental home during festivals or 3 religious occasions, the applicant would drop her off at the Katghora bus stand but never came to pick her up. The applicant purchased a four-wheeler in the non-applicant’s name and demanded ₹5,00,000/- as down payment and all subsequent EMIs to be paid by the non-applicant’s father. When she refused, the applicant and his family members taunted her, saying, “Your father didn’t give us any car or money in dowry, that’s why we bought the car in your name—now ask your father to pay for it.” When the non-applicant opposed this, the applicant and his family stopped speaking to her and began to abuse and physically assault her. They also started pressuring her to leave the matrimonial home. The non-applicant further states that all the items given by her father at the time of marriage—such as cooler, washing machine, fridge, utensils, gas stove, and other gifts—were taken away by the applicant’s sister-in- law, Mrs. Suman Sahu. Whenever the non-applicant fell ill, she was not given any medical treatment. Her gold and silver jewelry given during the wedding was taken and kept by her mother-in-law, who, despite repeated requests, refused to return them. On 13.04.2019, the applicant and his family members abused, assaulted, and threw the applicant out of the matrimonial home. Though her parents and members of the community tried to intervene and resolve the matter, there was no change in the behavior of the applicant or his family. Subsequently, the non- applicant lodged an FIR at Manendragarh Police Station on 06.08.2019 under Sections 498-A and 34 of IPC, on the basis of which an offense was registered and the case is currently pending 4 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora. The non- applicant suffers from health issues and is unemployed. On the other hand, the applicant jointly operates a tea, snacks, and paan shop at the Katghora Bus Stand, through which he earns around ₹30,000/- per month. In addition, he owns 5–6 acres of ancestral agricultural land in Village Chhuri, which yields, apart from grain for the household, an income of ₹4–5 lakhs annually. Due to lack of support and financial hardship, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 1000/- per month from the applicant. 4. The applicant filed reply of the application filed by the non-applicant and denied the all allegations of the non-applicant and also take plea that non-applicant wants to leave separately with his family member and she left the house of the applicant, therefore applicant is not liable to pay the maintenance, because without any reason she left the house of the applicant. 5. After considering the pleadings and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, upon due appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. whereby it was directed the applicant to pay Rs 2,500-/ per month to the non-applicant from the filling of the application. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence available on record while passing the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court suffered from factual and legal 5 infirmity. He further submits that the applicant financial conditions are not well therefore, he could not pay any amount to the non- applicant. The finding of learned Family Court is perverse and contrary to the material available on record. He also submts that on 04-02-2021 the learned Family Court passed an order in favour of the non-applicant and directed the applicant to pay the Rs 2,500/- per month to the non-applicant from the filling of the application, impugned order is illegal and contrary to the law. Therefore, impugned order is illegal, bad in law and deserved to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicant before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the applicant. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court, upon due appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, the learned Family Court passed the judgment on 04.02.2021, whereby it was directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2500/- per month towards maintenance amount to the non-applicant /wife, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning 6 capacity, and expenses granted Rs.2500/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal