Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28191 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 617 of 2019 Dinesh Kumar Sidar S/o Mahettar Sidar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Gandabordi, Post Purena, P.S. And Tahsil- Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant 1 - Gomti Sidar W/o Dinesh Kumar Sidar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Gandabordi, R/o Village Bartunga, P.S. And Tahsil- Dabhara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Shrejal Sidar D/o Dinesh Kumar Sidar Aged About 5 Years R/o Village Gandabordi, R/o Village Bartunga, P.S. And Tahsil- Dabhara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kumari Ritika Sidar D/o Dinesh Kumar Sidar Aged About 6 Years R/o Village Gandabordi, R/o Village Bartunga, P.S. And Tahsil- Dabhara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Harishankar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 26.06.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Harishankar Patel, learned counsel for the respondents. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent No. 1, namely, Gomti Sidar, who is the wife of the applicant, has died during the pendency of this revision. 3. Accordingly, the petition so far as it relates to respondent No. 1, namely, Gomti Sidar, who is the wife of the applicant, is concerned the same is dismissed as infructuous. 4. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice equity and good conscience that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 05-02-2019 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 5. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent no.1 married the present applicant on 21.04.2009 as per Hindu rites at Village Bartunga, and two children (respondents no.2 and 3) were born from the wedlock. It was alleged by respondent no.1 that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the applicant and his family due to dowry demands, including a refrigerator, motorcycle, and ₹50,000 in cash. She further claimed that the applicant was addicted to gambling and alcohol, and assaulted her when she objected, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home on 31.12.2014. She submitted that the applicant did not provide proper care or support for her and the children, despite being employed as a Peon at the 3 Girls Hostel, Halahuli, and having access to additional income from family agricultural land and his father’s salary as a Headmaster. She, therefore, sought ₹5000 each for herself and the two children (total ₹15,000) as monthly maintenance. The applicant, in his reply, denied all allegations, stating he never indulged in drinking, gambling, or dowry demands, and that he always cared for his wife and children. He asserted that the respondent left the matrimonial home voluntarily when he refused to separate from his parents. After considering the pleadings and evidence, the learned Family Court awarded ₹2500 each to the two children (respondents no.2 and 3), totaling ₹5000 per month, as maintenance. Hence, this revision has been filed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that The order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, improper, and liable to be set aside as it suffers from legal and factual infirmities. The Family Court erred in granting maintenance to respondents no.2 and 3, despite the fact that respondent no.1 had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason and took the children along with her. It is evident from the findings and her own admission that the present applicant was residing with his parents and extended family, comprising 11 members, and bears the burden of maintaining them. The applicant has consistently expressed willingness to reside with respondents no.1 to 3, but due to the refusal of respondent no.1, the children continued to live with her. Furthermore, the learned Court wrongly assessed the applicant’s income as ₹20,000 per month, whereas 4 his actual income is only ₹8,100 per month, as evidenced by the income certificate dated 01.09.2018 (Annexure A-2). The Court failed to consider that if ₹5,000 is paid as maintenance to the children, it would severely affect the applicant’s ability to support his dependent family members. Hence, the impugned order warrants interference in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.). 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after carefully considering the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances of the case, rightly passed the order dated 05.02.2019, granting maintenance of ₹2500 per month each to the two minor children (respondents no.2 and 3), totaling ₹5000 per month. The Court evaluated the material on record, including the applicant’s employment as a Peon at the Girls Hostel, Halahuli, and found merit in awarding maintenance to the children, who are legally entitled to be supported by their father. The Court did not grant maintenance to respondent no.1, Gomti Sidar, thereby exercising proper judicial discretion and balancing the financial responsibilities of the applicant. Therefore, the Family Court’s decision is just, reasonable, and does not warrant any interference. 5 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 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. 12. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan