Mona John Kujur W/o Dr. Atit Kumar Kujur Aged About 32 Years R/o Kashyap v. Dr. Atit Kumar Kujur S/o Sushil Kumar Kujur Aged About 33 Years R/o Present
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40555 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 451 of 2024 Mona John Kujur W/o Dr. Atit Kumar Kujur Aged About 32 Years R/o Kashyap Ward, In Front of Kishan Bakery, Nayamunda, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Dr. Atit Kumar Kujur S/o Sushil Kumar Kujur Aged About 33 Years R/o Present Address Kanchan Nivas, Near P.S. Amanaka, Mahua Baazar, Raipur (C.G.) Present New Address Near Jivan Jyoti Aashram, Church Umli Tekra, Hirapur, Ward No. 11, Post And P.S. Bharbeli District Balaghat (M.P.) ... Respondent For applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.14 19:45:51 +0530 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12.08.2025 Order on Board 1. 2. Heard Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. The present petition has been filed by the applicant seeking following prayer:- “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to modified/set-aside the vide order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bastar, at Jagdalpur passed in M.J.C No. 36/2022, wherein it was held by the Court that applicant was not entitled for any maintenance 2 under the provisions of section 125(4) of Cr.P.C because applicant was living separately from her husband without any sufÏcient reason; and application of the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. be allowed and award the maintenances tune of Rs 20,000/- per month. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. As per ofÏce report, notice issued to the respondent has been served to him on 28.05.2024, but the respondent has not put in appearance. In view of the same, the Court proceeds to hear the matter. 4. Facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband. The marriage of the applicant and the respondent took place on 08.04.2021 at Carmel Church, Frezerpur, Jagdalpur, as per the customs of Christianity. After the marriage, everything remained normal for about a week. However, the applicant soon discovered that her husband was having an illicit relationship with another woman. The respondent used to engage in lengthy phone conversations with this woman late at night. Despite the applicant’s repeated requests to end the relationship, the respondent persisted in communicating with her. Furthermore, he explicitly informed the applicant that he had no intention of ending the relationship and that he was willing to leave the applicant instead. The respondent subjected the applicant to harassment through physical violence and verbal abuse, often occurring late at night when he returned home intoxicated. He also unjustly targeted the applicant’s mother and sister with verbal abuse. Despite the applicant’s efforts to address the respondent’s conduct by 3 informing his parents, they failed to intervene and instead supported his actions. On 14.07.2021, the respondent severely assaulted the applicant, causing serious injuries. When the applicant’s parents were informed, they visited the respondent’s residence to discuss the matter with his family. However, they were met with disrespect, as the respondent not only insulted them but also forcibly expelled the applicant from the house in their presence. Subsequent attempts by the applicant’s parents to reconcile the matter proved futile, as the respondent unequivocally refused to allow the applicant to return. The applicant has no independent source of income and is facing severe financial hardship, amounting to a situation of starvation. The respondent is presently employed as a Resident Medical OfÏcer at Life Birth Hospital, Raipur, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 40,000/-. Consequently, she filed the present application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Family Court. 5. After hearing both the parties, learned Family Court vide its order dated 21.03.2024, refused to grant maintenance to the applicant without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 21.03.2024, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, is erroneous and contrary to law. It is contended that the learned Court wrongly concluded that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance from the respondent. She submits that after her marriage to the respondent on 08.04.2021, the applicant discovered that her husband was involved in an illicit relationship with another woman. Despite her repeated requests to end the relationship, the respondent continued the affair and even expressed his willingness to leave the applicant instead. It is further submitted that the respondent subjected 4 the applicant to harassment through physical violence and verbal abuse, often occurring late at night when he returned home intoxicated. The learned Family Court itself recorded in its order dated 21.03.2024 that the applicant has no independent source of income and is incapable of maintaining herself. She further submitst hat the respondent is presently employed as a Resident Medical OfÏcer at Life Birth Hospital, Raipur, earning a salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month. Despite this, the learned Court failed to award any maintenance to the applicant. She also submits that the respondent’s plea that he is unable to work regularly due to the applicant is false and is intended solely to conceal his actual income in order to evade payment of a fair and reasonable maintenance amount. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the MLC report dated 14.07.2021, which documented the serious injuries sustained by the applicant. This report clearly establishes that the respondent subjected her to cruelty, making it unsafe for her to reside with him. In light of the above, the applicant prays that the impugned order be set aside or suitably modified and that her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. be allowed by awarding maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month in her favour. 7. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. From perusal of the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Family Court, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, it transpires that the application preferred by the applicant under Section 125 of the CrPC for grant of maintenance was dismissed. The Court observed that the applicant had failed to prove her pleadings that she was beaten by her husband on 14.07.2021. Similarly, sufÏcient evidence was not produced to substantiate that she was living separately from the respondent. 9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, 5 as well as on perusal of the impugned order of the learned Family Court, it appears that the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance was dismissed on the ground that the applicant failed to prove her allegation of assault on 14.07.2021 and did not produce sufÏcient evidence regarding living separately from the respondent. It is, however, an admitted fact that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 08.04.2021 at Carmel Church, Frezerpur, Jagdalpur, as per the customs of Christianity and it is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent is involved in an illicit relationship with another woman and is presently working as a Resident Medical OfÏcer at Life Birth Hospital, Raipur, earning a salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month. Despite service of notice regarding the pendency of the present revision petition, the respondent has not appeared before this Court. 10.
Decision
In view of the above, and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the concerned Family Court for a fresh decision on the question of maintenance of the applicant, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. It is ordered accordingly. The matter is remitted back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). 11. Accordingly, this revision stands allowed. 12. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Family Court, forthwith. Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice