Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40553 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 470 of 2024 Ramdular Sahu S/o. Madan Sahu Aged About 50 Years Occupation Service (Book Lifter) Govt. Gajanand Agrawal Post Graduate College, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh versus ... Applicant Ashwani Bai Sahu W/o. Ramdular Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o. Village Datrengi, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the present revision petition. 8. 9. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice
Arguments
: Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.14 11:11:37 +0530 1. 2. Heard Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the Ld. Family Court, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 309/2023.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 22/09/2023, the respondent preferred an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family 2 Court, Balodabazar, stating inter alia that the marriage between the respondent and applicant took place in the year 1997 as per social customs, and from their wedlock one son, namely Bhikham Sahu, and two daughters, namely Bhojkumari and Janaki, were born. About 11–12 years ago, the applicant assaulted the respondent along with her children, threw her out of the matrimonial home, and brought another woman, Uma, into the house as his wife, with whom he has two children. The respondent further stated in her application that earlier, on 16/09/2014, she had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance for herself and her three children against the applicant in the Family Court, Balodabazar, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 189/19. In that case, in lieu of maintenance, 40 decimals of land were given to the respondent in a social meeting. Since two of her children had attained majority, the learned Family Court, on that basis, dismissed the application of the applicants vide order dated 31/12/2019 (Annexure A-2). The respondent further submitted that after disposal of the case, the said 40 decimal land was taken over by the mother and grandmother of the applicant. When the respondent demanded the said land, the applicant abused her and threatened to kill her. One Chetan Sahu and his family members from the village also tried to evict the respondent from her residence. The said 40 decimal land is not in the name of the applicant, and despite knowing this, the applicant made a false statement before the Court and in the social meeting regarding having given the land to the respondent. Immediately after disposal of the case, the applicant fraudulently took back the land given to her and has been cultivating it himself, due to which the respondent is facing severe difÏculty in maintaining herself. The applicant is employed as a Book Lifter in the Government Gajanand Aggarwal Post Graduate College, 3 Bhatapara, where he earns a salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month, and he also possesses about five acres of agricultural land, from which he earns approximately Rs. 4,00,000/- annually. Thus, the applicant is financially well-off. Hence, the respondent prayed before the Court for grant of maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the applicant or for registration of 40 decimals of land in her name. 4. The applicant submitted his reply, denying almost all the facts mentioned in the application except for those specifically admitted. He further submitted that the respondent had socially abandoned him, and only thereafter did he keep Mrs. Umabai as his wife, from whom he has four children. The respondent, in a social meeting, was given all the inherited property, including 40 decimals of agricultural land and a verandah along with a room for her residence, which she is currently using. However, she took no steps to have the said land registered in her name, for which she herself is at fault. The applicant further stated that he is in government service and supports his second wife and children from his income, and apart from that, he has no other property. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. Learned Family Court, on the basis of the arguments of both parties and upon perusal of the records, framed the following issue for determination and recorded its finding as partly “Yes”: Whether the applicant took over the 40 decimal land that was socially given to the respondent by the applicant for her living, and hence, in lieu of the same, the respondent is entitled to receive maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the applicant? 6. After recording evidence, the learned Family Court passed the impugned 4 order partly allowing the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant from the date of filing of the application. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order of the learned Family Court is not only bad in law and on the facts of record, but is also against the provisions of Section 127(1) of the Cr.P.C., whereby allowance may be altered only under the conditions prescribed. Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under: “127. Alteration in allowance. – [(1) On proof of a change in the circumstances of any person receiving, under Section 125, a monthly allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance, as the case may be, to his wife, child, father or mother, the Magistrate may make such alteration, as he thinks fit, in the allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance, as the case may be.] He also submits that learned Family Court has committed gross illegality in entertaining and allowing the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent, as the earlier application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by this respondent had already been dismissed by the learned Family Court. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant had an alternative remedy of filing a revision petition instead of an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that the impugned order dated 09/02/2024 passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the respondent. He also submits that learned Family Court, vide order dated 31/12/2019 (Ann. A-2), partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and her three 5 children, and granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- only to respondent No. 4, minor Kumar Janki Sahu, while rejecting the claim for maintenance of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Hence, in view of the aforesaid order dated 31/12/2019, the impugned order dated 09/02/2024 (Ann. A-1) deserves to be set aside. Learned Family Court further failed to appreciate that the respondent filed the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. after more than three years and eleven months from the date of the order dated 31/12/2019, and during this entire period she was fully capable of maintaining herself. The application was filed merely to harass the applicant. He further submits that learned Family Court has failed to see that the respondent, without sufÏcient cause, left the house of the Revisioner and has been living separately. Learned Family Court has further failed to appreciate that the applicant has never neglected the respondent and has always made efforts to maintain his conjugal relationship with her. On the contrary, it is the respondent who ignored the applicant and made no effort to return and reside with him. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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