Vishnu Tandan S/o Shri Sahasram Tandan Aged About 49 Years By Caste- Satnami, R/o v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36486 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 416 of 2024 Vishnu Tandan S/o Shri Sahasram Tandan Aged About 49 Years By Caste- Satnami, R/o Village- Majgaonpara Mungeli, Thana And Tahsil- Mungeli, Dist. Mungeli, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Shashi Tandan W/o Shri Vishnu Tandan Aged About 47 Years By Caste- Satnami R/o Village- Majgaonpara Mungeli, At Present Daupara Mungeli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, Dist. Mungeli, C.G.
Legal Reasoning
interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 14. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice
Arguments
ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.29 19:34:33 +0530 2. Ku. Deepali D/o Shri Vishnu Tandan Aged About 24 Years By Caste- Satnami R/o Village- Majgaonpara Mungeli, At Present Daupara Mungeli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, Dist. Mungeli, C.G. 3. Dharmesh S/o Shri Vishnu Tandan Aged About 21 Years By Caste- Satnami R/o Village- Majgaonpara Mungeli, At Present Daupara Mungeli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, Dist. Mungeli, C.G. 4. Harsh Tandan S/o Shri Vishnu Tandan Aged About 19 Years By Caste- Satnami R/o Village- Majgaonpara Mungeli, At Present Daupara Mungeli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, Dist. Mungeli, C.G. ... Respondents For Applicant For Respondents : : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 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 09.02.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 73/2023 by the learned Family Court, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) may kindly be set-aside and the application filed by the non-applicant No. 3 and 4 may kindly be dismissed looking to their age, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant with respondent No.1 took place in the year 1998 as per customs, and from the said wedlock, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were born. At present, all of them have attained the age of majority and are residing with respondent No.1 at the address mentioned in the cause title. The respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 12.07.2018 before the Learned JMFC, Mungeli, stating that after three years of marriage, the applicant harassed her by demanding dowry and physically assaulted her. The further case of the respondents is that six months prior to filing the application, the applicant ousted them from his house, due to which she, along with the children, started residing at her parental home. 3 4. It was further averred in the application that the applicant/husband, despite having sufÏcient means, has failed to provide any amount towards their maintenance. It was stated that he is working as a teacher earning Rs. 50,000/- per month and also owns 5 acres of agricultural land. Therefore, the wife and children claimed a sum of Rs. 31,000/- per month as maintenance, along with an application for interim maintenance. 5. Learned Family Court issued notice, and upon receiving the same, the applicant herein filed his reply denying all adverse allegations made against him. He submitted that the respondent No. 01 is not entitled to any maintenance, as she is residing separately without any reasonable cause. The applicant/husband had made every possible effort to keep the respondents with him, but respondent No.1 was not willing to reside with the applicant. He also stated that he has been providing expenses for the education and other needs of the children. It was further stated in the reply that the applicant made all possible efforts for restitution of conjugal rights. He, along with his relatives and friends, visited and requested respondent No.1 to return to the matrimonial home. However, she insisted that she would come only if the applicant agreed to live separately from his aged parents. 6. Learned trial Court heard the application for interim maintenance and, by order dated 05.01.2019, granted interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month each to respondent Nos. 2 to 4, thereby awarding a total of Rs. 9,000/- per month. 7. The respondent No.3, namely Dharmesh, attained the age of majority. The applicant filed an application along with his birth certificate, showing his date of birth as 19.11.2001. The said application was allowed vide order dated 07.01.2020, and the interim maintenance granted to 4 Dharmesh was stayed. After the establishment of the Family Court at Mungeli District, the case was transferred from the JMFC, Mungeli, to the Family Court, Mungeli, in the year 2023. Thereafter, evidence was recorded, and in her statement, respondent No.1 clearly admitted that all the children have attained the age of majority and are currently over 18 years of age. 8. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed a civil suit on 29.11.2021, declaring themselves as majors, seeking a declaration of title, partition, separate possession, and permanent injunction against the applicant and his family members. The said suit is pending before the Learned 3rd Civil Judge, Class I, Mungeli. A copy of the order sheet along with the plaint is filed and marked herewith as Annexure A-4. 9. Learned trial Court, in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgment, recorded a finding that respondent No.1 is residing separately without any sufÏcient cause and therefore is not entitled to any maintenance. Further, the Court recorded that respondent No.2 has attained the age of majority, yet, contrary to the order dated 07.01.2020, held that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were minors on the date of filing of the application and allowed the application by awarding a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month for respondent No.3 and Rs. 4,000/- per month for respondent No.4, totaling Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance. This was done without considering the earlier order sheets and without appreciating the fact that the application for maintenance was filed on 12.07.2018, and the applicant had already paid the amount of interim maintenance during the pendency of the case. A certified copy of the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 is filed and marked herewith as Annexure A-1. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court erred 5 in passing the order of maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who have already attained the age of majority— a fact that was admitted by the respondent No. 01 in her court statement. He submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Mungeli, is contrary to the mandate of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., as maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be granted only to minor children. In the present case, the Court, without considering the actual age of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, passed the impugned order, which is not legally sustainable. He also submits that learned Trial Court, on the one hand, recorded a finding that respondent No. 2 has attained the age of majority and hence did not award maintenance to her, but on the other hand, contrary to the order dated 07.01.2020, passed the impugned order granting maintenance to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, which is legally incorrect and warrants interference in revision. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant made all possible efforts to keep his wife and children with him. However, respondent No.1 was not willing to reside with the applicant and, without any sufÏcient cause, chose to leave the matrimonial home and reside separately. He also submits that learned Family Court did not properly consider or appreciate the reply filed by the applicant and also failed to consider the admission made by AW-1 in Court regarding the age of the children. He submits that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law and cannot be legally sustained, as per the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C., major children are not entitled to maintenance under the said provision. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have filed a civil suit on 29.11.2021 declaring themselves as majors, seeking declaration of title, partition, separate possession, and permanent injunction against the applicant and his family members with respect to ancestral property. The said suit is pending before the Learned 3rd Civil 6 Judge, Class I, Mungeli. Hence, they are not entitled to any maintenance from the applicant. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 13. 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 Nos. 3 and 4 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting