Smt. Sangeeta Kamde W/o Sudarshan Kande Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kohngatola, Police v. Sudarshan Kamde S/o
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:40541 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 563 of 2024 Smt. Sangeeta Kamde W/o Sudarshan Kande Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kohngatola, Police Station, Tahsil Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Sudarshan Kamde S/o Shri Puna Ram Kamde Aged About 31 Years Village Kohngatola, Police Station, Tahsil Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Barun Chakraborty, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Barun Chakraborty, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and directed to the respondent to pay the maintenance amount so far as it relates to the claim of applicant, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant, Smt. Sangeeta Kamde, was 2 married to the non-applicant, Sudershan Kumar Kamde, on 28/04/2018 according to Hindu social customs and rites at Village Khairbana, District Balod (Chhattisgarh). After marriage, both parties resided together and leading a marital life. According to the applicant, after marriage, she stayed for about one month with the non- applicant at her matrimonial home in Village Kohangatola, Tehsil/District Balod (Chhattisgarh), where she alleges the non- applicant neither communicated with her nor established any physical relationship. Subsequently, on the assurance of “living together,” the non-applicant took the applicant to Village Ranitari, District Balod and rented a house for her. However, he stayed there only for three or four days and thereafter stopped visiting altogether, also failing to provide any money for food or household expenses, forcing the applicant to undertake daily wage labour to meet her needs. Thereafter, she was taken back to her matrimonial home at Village Kohangatola but was made to live in a cattle shed (“gai kotha”) with no door. She claims to have resided there for about two years and is still living there. The non-applicant never accorded her the status and respect of a wife. The non-applicant’s parents and family members allegedly refused to speak to her, taunted her by saying she came from a poor and penniless family, brought no dowry, and accused her of being a witch (“tonhi”). She was not allowed to touch household items, perform any household work, or even enter the house. They also did not give her any money for expenses. The non-applicant allegedly cast aspersions on her character, humiliated her, and told her, “Do not put his name as her husband in any 3 document, do not associate his name with her. The applicant’s mother-in-law allegedly taunted her by saying, “she is always sick, she cannot bear a child, she will remain childless all her life.” Her brother-in-law and sister-in-law allegedly prevented her from interacting with children, insulted her and also questioned her character. During festivals, she was allegedly left alone. Gifts received from her parental family were placed outside in a shed where they were spoiled. She claims she was not given proper food, which led to ill health, and that neither the non-applicant nor his family arranged any medical treatment for her. Due to the unbearable physical and mental cruelty inflicted by the non-applicant and his family, the applicant allegedly attempted suicide in December 2018 by consuming thinner, but her life was saved with difÏculty. Since then, her health has deteriorated, and she has been living at her parental home in Village Khairbana. She claims the non-applicant has made no arrangements for her maintenance. Being physically weak, she is unable to work and has no source of income. Meanwhile, the non-applicant allegedly earns ₹20,000/- per month as a computer operator and also owns about five acres of agricultural land, yielding an annual income of around ₹3,00,000/-. The applicant asserts that the non-applicant, despite being financially capable, is willfully neglecting her maintenance. Accordingly, she prays that her application be allowed and that she be awarded ₹10,000/- per month as maintenance from the non-applicant. 4. In reply, the non-applicant has denied all allegations except those admitted above. He states that after marriage, the parties lived together at Village Kohangatola, District Balod, and shared cordial 4 marital relations for some time. Thereafter, the applicant’s behaviour allegedly became aggressive. The non-applicant claims he made every possible effort to improve her conduct while fulfilling his marital obligations. According to him, despite being a Class-12 educated housewife, the applicant allegedly invited her former lover, Ramesh Maheshwari (a resident of Chhawni Bhilai, District Durg), with whom she had a premarital relationship, to her matrimonial home. This person allegedly abused the non-applicant in obscene language, invoked his past relationship with the applicant, and unsuccessfully tried to take her away. The non-applicant states he informed the applicant’s parents and village elders, after which a meeting was convened and the applicant was advised to sever all contact with that man. On 27/12/2018, when the non-applicant had left for work, the applicant allegedly attempted suicide by consuming thinner. Upon learning of the incident, the non-applicant immediately arranged for an ambulance (dial 108) and had her admitted to hospital. Due to her serious condition, she was shifted to Christian Hospital, Dhamtari, where he bore all treatment expenses. After her recovery, he advised her not to repeat such acts and continued to live with her in a respectful marital manner. However, he alleges her behaviour did not improve and she began threatening to either commit suicide or kill him. He further claims she argued with his parents, and on being counselled, locked herself in her room and attempted suicide again by hanging. She was saved, and fearing for her safety, she was sent to her parental home for some time. She later returned to Kohangatola with the non-applicant, but her conduct allegedly remained unchanged. On 05/02/2019, the non-applicant took her, 5 along with necessary household items, to a rented house in Village Ranitari to start afresh, but she allegedly quarreled with neighbours and continued making suicide attempts. Eventually, he brought her back to Kohangatola. On questioning by neighbours, she allegedly admitted to trying to hang herself, pour kerosene on the bed, set it on fire, and lock the non-applicant in the same room so that they could both die together. He claims that due to her extreme conduct, his parents’ health seriously deteriorated. Considering her mental state, she was given a room without a latch on the door to prevent untoward incidents and to keep her under watch. The non-applicant further states that there has been no marital relationship between them for the past two years, and there is no possibility of them living together again. On 01/12/2020, he filed an application/complaint before the OfÏcer-in-Charge of the Women’s Cell, seeking guidance to prevent recurrence of such incidents, but her behaviour allegedly did not change. Consequently, he filed an application before the trial Court under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking judicial separation. He further asserts that the present application has been filed by the applicant with mala fide intent after receiving notice of his case. The non-applicant claims he earns only ₹4,000/- per month as a computer operator. He further states that the applicant is still residing at his house and is being maintained by him, and therefore she is not entitled to any maintenance. He prays that her application be dismissed. 5. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court has passed an order dated 29.01.2024, 6 whereby rejected the application of the applicant on the ground that she has failed to prove her case further without any sufÏcient cause she is residing separately, therefore she is not entitled for maintenance amount. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has not awarded any amount as maintenance in favour of the applicant, when she was proved the cruelty of the non-applicant and his family members. The learned Family Court passed the order against the finding of facts and only on the basis of the non-applicant has filed an application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. for Judicial separation, when she was already victim in the case, the learned Family Court has not seen the act of her husband and in- laws, they had threatened the applicant for her bad corrector and other reasons therefore the applicant is residing separately in her parental house with sufÏcient reasons and she is facing financial problem, therefore the amount of maintenance is necessary as present status of the non-applicant. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rightly passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Considering the evidence and overall circumstances of the case, the Family Court has rightly held that the applicant failed to establish the 7 essential prerequisites for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been observed that the wife is residing separately from her husband without any justifiable or sufÏcient cause. A fundamental condition for claiming maintenance, that the husband has given cause or compelled the wife to live separately, has not been satisfactorily proved by the applicant. In the absence of such proof, the applicant cannot be deemed entitled to maintenance. The Family Court, upon a thorough examination of the pleadings and the evidence on record, has arrived at a well- reasoned, lawful, and justified conclusion in dismissing the claim for maintenance. 10. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal