UMAR DEWANGAN Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Roopa Vairagde W
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35729 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 598 of 2022 Deepak Vairagde S/o Shri Subhash Rao Vairagde Aged About 33 Years R/o Anuvrat Vihar, Teachers Colony, Kota, Thana, Sarswati Nagar, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Roopa Vairagde W/o Shri Deepak Vairagde Aged About 33 Years D/o Late Shri Lakshman Rao Dorle, R/o Behind Sai Temple, Santoshi Temple, Lakhe Nagar, Police Station Purani Basti Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aishwary Diwan holding the brief of Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.764/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court 2 partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent’s marriage to the applicant was solemnized on February 22, 2015, at Maharashtrian Teli Samaj Bhavan, Ashwini Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, according to Hindu customs. The respondent has no children from the marital life. The respondent has averred that at the time of marriage, her mother and brothers gave her gifts of gold and silver jewelry, household items, clothes, etc., according to their means. After the marriage, when the respondent went to her matrimonial home, from the second day onwards, the applicant's parents and siblings started beating and abusing her, demanding dowry. The respondent brought Rs. 40,000 from her parental home and gave it to the applicant, who later started demanding more money and beat and abused her if she didn't comply. The respondent was forced to do all the household work, and the family members would taunt, abuse, and beat her. The applicant's family members would often visit the house, demanding loans, and would stand the respondent in front of the creditors. Within 15-20 days of marriage, the respondent was taunted and demanded money for buying a house and car. After a year of marriage, the respondent and the applicant were forced to live separately by the applicant's family members. They started living in a rented house in DD Nagar, Raipur, where the 3 applicant started treating the respondent like an animal and beat her for small reasons. The respondent started working and tried to balance the household. The applicant sold the motorcycle, mobile, and washing machine. After two and a half years, the repondent and the applicant returned to the matrimonial home, but the demands and abuse continued. The respondent, fed up, started living separately from the applicant at her parental home on June 30, 2018. The respondent has averred that she filed a complaint against the applicant and his parents at the Women Police Station, Raipur, but no action was taken, and instead, a final report was filed under Section 155 of the CrPC. The applicant threatened the respondent. The respondent has also averred that the applicant has an illicit relationship with a girl named Seema Sharma, and when she objected, the applicant abused and beat her, spending his earnings on that girl, causing financial difficulties at home. The respondent has further averred that the applicant works as an electrician on a contract basis and earns Rs. 40,000- 50,000/- per month. The respondent is living with her widowed mother and two brothers at her parental home and is dependent on them for sustenance. The respondent has prayed for a maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000 per month from the applicant. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family 4 Court failed to appreciate the fact that the present applicant is working as an electrician with a monthly income of approximately Rs.7,000/- and it is not feasible for him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000. Furthermore, the respondent wife left the applicant’s house and allegedly subjected the applicant and his family members to cruelty by filing a false complaint. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant’s parents are elderly and the applicant also has the responsibility of his younger brother, making it difficult for the applicant to maintain his family members. Moreover, the Court failed to appreciate that the respondent wife is working as a beautician and earning a substantial amount of Rs.15,000, making her capable of maintaining herself. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the statement of Vibha Tiwari, the owner of the beauty parlor, who stated that the respondent wife works under her and earns a monthly income of Rs.5,000, excluding other bonus amounts. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. 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 respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance 5 observing that The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and the applicant has an illicit relationship with another woman, which the respondent caught him red-handed and the said fact has not been denied by the applicant / husband in his examination-in-chief. Due to this, the respondent is currently living separately from her husband and she is unable to earn a regular income. Thus, the Family Court concluded that the respondent is entitled to maintenance. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil