SH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN v. Pradeep Kumar Yadav S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:41454 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 488 of 2021 Smt. Anamika Yadav W/o. Shri Pradeep Kumar Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o. Village- Ramanujnagar, P.S. And Tehsil- Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
Pradeep Kumar Yadav S/o. Shri Shankar Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o. Village - Patna, Thana Patna, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (Chhattisgarh) Presently Residing At - Minus Colony, Qtr. No. 176, Bishrampur, P.S.- Bishrampur, Tehsil And District- Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pranav Tiwari, holding the brief of Mr. Shashi Bhusan Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 30.06.2021 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.25/2021, 2 whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant / wife. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, Surajpur (C.G.), seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the respondent. The marriage of the applicant with the respondent was solemnized on 28.04.2018, in the presence of relatives and friends, according to Hindu rites and rituals. For the initial period of about three months after the marriage, the relationship between the parties remained cordial and harmonious, but thereafter, the respondent started treating the applicant with cruelty, subjecting her to physical violence and ill-treatment, thereby creating such circumstances which compelled the applicant to leave the matrimonial home. The applicant was so much harassed and suffered both mental and physical cruelty at the hands of the Respondent that she was left with no other option but to separate herself, as the Respondent failed to discharge his matrimonial obligations despite all efforts. After leaving the matrimonial house, the applicant has been facing great hardship in maintaining herself, particularly in view of the high cost of living and increasing prices of essential commodities. Hence, she filed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Surajpur, which was duly registered, notice was issued to the respondent, and the respondent submitted his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the applicant / wife. Thereafter, the Family Court after considering all the documents and 3 evidence adduced by the parties rejected the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant / wife. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the learned Family Court has erred in law in rejecting the application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure solely on the ground that the respondent had met with a road accident and remained under prolonged medical treatment. It is contended that such a consideration, by itself, cannot constitute a valid ground for denial of maintenance to the applicant/wife, particularly when the obligation to maintain the wife is a statutory duty cast upon the husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which cannot be diluted on account of personal circumstances, unless it is proved that the husband is wholly incapable of earning a livelihood. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from material illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment passed by the Family Court, but on a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the respondent about the status of respondent, he submits that, he is alive. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court the Family Court, while dismissing the application of the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC, has principally relied upon the 4 fact that the respondent/husband had met with a road accident and remained under prolonged medical treatment, which allegedly resulted in mental imbalance, irritation and ill-behaviour. On this premise, the Family Court concluded that the applicant was not having sufficient and reasonable ground to live separately, and hence, not entitled for maintenance. 7. At this juncture, it is apposite to recall the object and scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The provision is a measure of social justice intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support their dependents but refuse to do so. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a statutory right and cannot be denied except for cogent and legally sustainable reasons. 8. In the present case, the learned Family Court, instead of appreciating the substance of the claim of the applicant, has laid undue emphasis on the accidental injury of the husband. The accident of the respondent may be a mitigating circumstance but cannot by itself absolve the husband of his legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife, particularly when the admitted position is that the respondent is employed as a Constable in the Police Department and draws a monthly salary of around Rs. 27,000/-. 9. The finding that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance merely because the husband is under medical treatment, is ex-facie erroneous and contrary to the settled position of law. The reasoning 5 adopted by the Family Court has caused grave prejudice to the applicant, who is otherwise admittedly unable to maintain herself. 10. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Family Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and has acted with material irregularity in rejecting the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.06.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur in Misc. Criminal Case No.25/2021, is hereby quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court concerned for fresh consideration of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in accordance with law within a period of two months from today, after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court concerned on 2nd of September, 2025. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record as well as the certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil