Champa, Chhattisgarh v. Yogendra Keshav Singh Rathore S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:30210 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 457 of 2018 Smt. Anita Rathore @ Anju Rathore W/o Yogendra Keshav Singh Rathore Aged About 35 Years R/o- Village Near Appu Garden, Dhodhipara, Korba, At Present Resident of Seoni, Tahsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus
Legal Reasoning
Yogendra Keshav Singh Rathore S/o Shri Sitaram Rathore Aged About 38 Years R/o- Village Near Appu Garden, Dhodhipara, Korab, District- Korab, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.07.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.05 14:49:24 +0530 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this 2 revision and award/order maintenance in favour of applicant to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant and the respondent are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 21.05.2011 at Village Seoni. Currently, both are living separately. After the marriage, the applicant went to her matrimonial home to perform her matrimonial obligations. At the time of marriage, the parents and relatives of the applicant gave household articles, utensils, gold and silver ornaments, a television, a refrigerator, and a cooler according to their capacity. However, after one month of marriage, the in-laws, including the respondent, subjected her to cruelty on account of their demand for dowry. The applicant endured this harassment with the hope that things would improve, but the harassment continued to increase day by day. The respondent also doubted the character of the applicant, suspecting that she was having a love affair with another person. Ultimately, the respondent ousted the applicant from his house on 10.11.2016 and left her at Village Khaira (Jayram Nagar). It was further submitted by the applicant that the respondent is working as an operator in a tower company and earns Rs. 18,000/- per month, and he also owns agricultural land, from which he earns approximately Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. Despite this, the respondent has not paid a single penny towards the maintenance of the applicant, which compelled her to file an application seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4. After receiving notice, the respondent filed his reply, denying the 3 allegations except for the admitted facts. He submitted that after the marriage, the applicant was in contact with another person over the phone and was having love affair with him. It was further contended that the applicant is living separately without any reasonable cause; therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. 5. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 22.03.2018, dismissed the maintenance application by holding that the applicant is living separately without any reasonable cause. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 22.03.2018 is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous; therefore, the maintenance amount is liable to be granted by this Hon’ble Court. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is living separately and has no source of income. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent doubted the character of the applicant and ultimately abandoned her. He submits that the respondent has made no efforts to take the applicant back to the matrimonial home, which is sufÏcient to hold that the applicant is living separately for a reasonable cause. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant, being a woman, requires material and other personal care and makeup articles for her daily needs. The respondent is responsible for the maintenance of the applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant, being the legally wedded wife of the respondent, is legally entitled to maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Family Court gravely erred in dismissing the 4 application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. without proper application of mind. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court had observed as under:- “47.The applicant stated that the monthly salary of the respondent was Rs. 18,000/- (eighteen thousand rupees), but did not produce the salary slip of the respondent. The applicant also did not suggest to the respondent that the contractor used to give him a salary slip, which she deliberately did not produce. Therefore, in the absence of documentary evidence, the claim that the respondent earned a monthly salary of Rs. 18,000/- (eighteen thousand rupees) was not acceptable. 48.Since the respondent worked as a labourer under a contractor, he was placed under the category of skilled labour. The government had fixed the daily wage of a skilled labourer at Rs. 312/- (three hundred and twelve rupees). On this basis, the monthly income of the respondent was determined to be Rs. 9,360/- (nine thousand three hundred and sixty rupees). Thus, the 5 respondent was capable of maintaining the applicant. Therefore, this issue was decided in the afÏrmative. 49.The applicant Anita had requested the Court to direct the respondent to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees). However, the applicant failed to prove that the monthly income of the respondent was three times the amount claimed. Therefore, it was not possible to direct the respondent to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees) to the applicant. Therefore, the order passed by the Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir – Champa, is just and proper. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek