Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 575 of 2018 Ramchand Patel S/o Shri Dhwajaram Patel Aged About 37 Years R/o- Village Ghanaghat, Lormi, Police Station- Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Gangabai Patel W/o Ramchand Patel Aged About 34 Years R/o- Village Ghanaghat, Lormi, Police Station- Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Village- Domsara, Tehsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 - Kishan Patel S/o Ramchand Patel Aged About 13 Years Respondent No. 2 Through Natural Guardian Smt. Gangabai Patel, W/o- Ramchand Patel Aged About 34 Years, R/o- Village Ghanaghat, Lormi, Police Station- Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Village- Domsara, Tehsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Baldau S/o Ramchand Patel Aged About 10 Years Respondent No. 3 Through Natural Guardian Smt. Gangabai Patel, W/o- Ramchand Patel Aged About 34 Years, R/o- Village Ghanaghat, Lormi, Police Station- Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Village- Domsara, Tehsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 4 - Ku. Versha D/o Ramchand Patel Aged About 8 Years Respondent No. 4 Through Natural Guardian Smt. Gangabai Patel, W/o- Ramchand Patel Aged About 34 Years, R/o- Village Ghanaghat, Lormi, Police Station- Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Village- Domsara, Tehsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 29.01.2018 passed by learned Family Court, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.524/2017, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 & 3 (each) until they attain the age of majority and Rs.1,000/- to respondent No.4 until she gets married, towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the revision are that respondent No. 1 was married to the applicant on 21.04.2003 as 3 per Hindu rites and rituals in village Domsara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) and from their wedlock respondent No. 2, Kishan, respondent No. 3, Baldau and respondent No. 4, Ku. Varsha. the respondent No.1 had moved an application for grant of maintenance from the present applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was registered as M.J.C. 524/17. In the said application judgment was pronounced in favor of the respondents wherein the present applicant is directed to provide maintenance of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred) per month to the Respondent no. 1 and Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) per month to Respondent no. 2 and Respondent no. 3 each until they attains majority and Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) per month to Respondent no. 4 until she gets married along with cost of suit. Hence, the revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court ought to have appreciated the amount of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which had been decided on mere assumption of income of present applicant is per contra to the actual earning of applicant and as such would cause undue hardship upon the applicant. He further submits that applicant is poor laborer/farmer and earns very less and is unable to provide maintenance as directed by the Family Court, which is on very higher side. He also submits that the Family Court relied only on oral submissions and contention raised by the respondent No.1 4 wife of the applicant and has failed to inquire for the evidence to prove the same. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 & 3 until they attains the age of majority and Rs.1,000/- to respondent No.4 until she gets married, towards maintenance observing the testimonies of the applicant and respondent, it is evident that the applicant and his father subjected respondent No. 1 to harassment, leading her to frequently return to her parental home, respondent No. 1 filed a case under Section 498-A IPC against the applicant and his father, the applicant admitted that the respodnent have been living separately from him since June 15, 2017 and respondent No. 1 testified that the applicant physically assaulted and expelled them from the matrimonial home on June 15, 2017, causing her to lose 5 consciousness. Given these circumstances, it is natural for respondent No. 1 to fear for her marital life due to behavior of the applicant, which constitutes a sufficient reason for her to live separately. He further observed the social status, earning capacity, number of dependents, and potential expenses granted the maintenance to the respondents. 8. Considering the submissions 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil