Mungeli, Chhattisgarh v. Bed Singh Sendre, S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1054 of 2018 1. Priyanka Bai W/o Bed Singh, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Bodhapara, P. S. - Lalpur, Tehsil and District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., 2. Pankaj Singh, S/o- Bed Singh, Aged About One And Half Years, Applicant No. 2 Is Minor, Represented Through By Natural Guardian Mother (Applicant No. 1), R/o Village- Bodhapara, P. S. - Lalpur, Tehsil and District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Bed Singh Sendre, S/o- Dayaram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village- Bodhapara, Caste Satnami, P. S. Lalpur, Tehsil and District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.01.2025 1. 2. Heard Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by Additional PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.21 10:47:52 +0530 2 Judge of Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, in Criminal Revision No. 11/2017, by which the learned revisional Court has rejected the claim of petitioner No.1/wife for maintenance and only awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to petitioner No. 2/son. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that Petitioner No-1 got married in the year 2012 with the respondent/husband as per Hindu customs and rituals and out of their wedlock a son was born. After one and half years of marriage the respondent without any reason beaten to petitioner No. 1 and subjected to cruelty by respondent and his family members and they always demand for unlawful property and valuable security from petitioner No.1, and when the petitioner couldn't fulfill the wishes of respondent for his demand of two lakhs rupees from petitioner No.1, she was thrown away from the matrimonial house. As the petitioner No.1 is unable to maintain herself and depend upon her parents and having a little child and for him she needed food and medicine so she is claiming Rs.10,000/- each maintenance from the respondent herein and it is also stated that the respondent is working as constable in Police Department and also having 12 acres agriculture land and is earning Rs. 15,00,000/- per month. The claim of the petitioner herein was denied by the respondent by filing a written statement it was stated that, the petitioner was her own will left the matrimonial house and he has also suffering from several diseases for which in different hospital he took treatment, and the petitioner willfully deserted to respondent so he is not liable to pay maintenance to the petitioner. The learned trial Court after framing of issues and evidence led by Smt. Priyanka Bai and Bed Singh Sendre and documents filed by the respondent, the learned trial Court examined the material available on record and vide order dated 13.12.2017 rejected the application of petitioners, thereafter being aggrieved to the 3 order passed by learned trial Court the petitioners preferred revision before revisional Court whereby revision was partly allowed in respect of petitioner No.2/son and granted Rs.2000/- per month but in respect of petitioner No.1/wife maintained the order passed by learned trial Court, therefore, the instant petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that judgment passed by the learned revisional Court is erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to material available on records and based on surmises and conjecture. The learned revisional Court failed to appreciate that right from marriage, the respondent and their family members used to ill treated and harassed to petitioner No.1/wife for demand of dowry and at last they constrained the petitioner to left the matrimonial house with his little child, thereafter she is living in her parental house with his little child. The learned revisional Court has erred in holding that the petitioner No.1 is living separately without any sufÏcient cause, despite the fact that she was ousted from the respondent and in- laws family; therefore she has no other option except to live in her parental house. He further submist that the learned revisional Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent or his parents did not make any effort to take back the petitioner in their house. The learned revisional Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner being legally wedded wife of respondent is legally entitled for maintenance as she is unable to maintain herself with her little child. The learned revisonal Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner has no source of income to maintain herself. For that, the learned revsional Court has gravely erred in rejecting the application for grant of maintenance, despite holding that the respondent is constable under Police Department and earned more than 2.5 lacs per annum, the petitioner being legally wedded wife of respondent is entitled to maintain 4 living standard, which is her constitutional right. Hence, he prays that the impugned order may be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and supports the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned revision Court. 6. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. From perusal of the documents available on record and from the order/Judgment passed by the revisional Court, it transpires that the the petitioner No. 1/wife had voluntarily living separately and is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the respondent/husband, a Police Constable, receives a monthly salary of Rs. 19,000/- and is capable of supporting the petitioner No.1 and their son. Since she had living separately without any justification, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. Thus, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and from perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned revisional Court, it transpires that the petitioner No.1/wife is found to be voluntarily living separately from the respondent/husband without any sufÏcient cause, thus, the petitioner No.1/wife has no right to receive any maintenance from the respondent/husband, I am of the view that the revisional Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Preeti Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice