Smt. Pooja Sahu W/o Dushyant Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Tahsil Road, Adarsh v. Dushyant Sahu S/o Gorelal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Tushma, Shivrenarayan, Tahsil Champa
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:42265 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1021 of 2025 Smt. Pooja Sahu W/o Dushyant Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Tahsil Road, Adarsh Nagar, Jagdala Champa, P.S. Champa, Tahsil Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus Dushyant Sahu S/o Gorelal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Tushma, Shivrenarayan, Tahsil Champa, District - Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, Posted At New Collector Colony House No. I / 21 Kawardha Tahsil And District - Kawardha Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant Along with CRR No. 652 of 2025 Dushyant Sahu S/o Gorelal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Tushma, Shivrinarayan District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Posted At New Collator Colony, House No. I-21, Kawardha Tehsil And District- Kabirdham (C.G.) --- Applicant Versus
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Pooja Sahu W/o Dushyan Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Tehsil Road, Adarsh Nagar Jagdalla District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Gunjan Tiwari, Advocate In CRR No. 1021/2025 In CRR No. 652/2025 For Applicant : Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Gunjan Tiwari, Advocate RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20 / 08 /20 25 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been filed against the same order, they are being decided of by this common order. 2. In the present case, an application for maintenance was filed on behalf of the wife, Smt. Pooja Sahu. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, vide order dated 17.04.2025, granted a monthly maintenance amount of total Rs. 4000/- to the wife, Smt. Pooja Sahu. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Pooja Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 1021/2025, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Dushyant Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 652/2025, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for applicant/husband Dushyant Sahu, would submit that the order passed by the Learned Family Court, Kunkuri suffers from infirmity and is liable to be set aside as it is contrary to the evidence on record. There is no material to show that the husband or his parents ever tortured the wife for dowry, which clearly indicates that the wife herself is unwilling to live with the husband as his wife. In her deposition, the wife has admitted 3 that the husband’s parents are wholly dependent on his income, the husband is employed as a peon earning Rs. 26,987/- per month and is also repaying loans from his salary, as reflected in the account statement filed as Annexure A-3. The wife, however, has neither shown willingness to reside peacefully with the husband nor to consummate the marriage, and instead has acted under malafide intention, even alleging falsely that the husband owns huge property, whereas his actual income is limited to Rs. 26,000/- per month. The conduct of the wife, who is residing at her paternal home without justifiable cause and allegedly maintaining an affair with one Dhirendra, demonstrates that she does not intend to cohabit with the husband but only seeks to harass him through maintenance proceedings. The Learned Family Court, without properly appreciating these facts and the wife’s unwillingness to discharge marital obligations, erroneously granted maintenance,
Decision
and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for applicant/wife would submit that the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jangir in MJC Criminal No. 434/2022 is arbitrary, bad in law, and suffers from non-application of mind. The Court failed to appreciate that the wife is residing separately for cogent reasons, as evident from the cross-examination under Order 18 Rule 04 CPC (Annexure A/4). The Court overlooked the intimation letter dated 23.10.2023 submitted to the Thana Incharge, Kotwali Kawardha (Annexure A/5), wherein the wife had clearly stated that she was subjected to physical and mental torture 4 by the huaband and his family members. The report of the Family Counselling Centre dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure A/6) also records that the parties had not consummated their marriage for two years, to which the husband raised no objection, establishing his misconduct. The Court further ignored the wife’s medical reports (Exhibits P/06 to P/15, Annexure A/7) which show that she requires regular medical treatment, adding to her financial burden. The finding that the husband alone bears responsibility for his parents and brother is also erroneous, as the brother is financially capable of sharing such responsibility. Despite acknowledging that the wife had sufÏcient cause to live separately due to cruelty and neglect, the Family Court erred in partly allowing the application and granting inadequate maintenance. The husband, having sufÏcient means, is legally bound to maintain his wife who cannot sustain herself, and the failure of the Family Court to appreciate these facts renders the impugned order liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the wife before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance and after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 17.04.2025, whereby it was directed the husband to pay Rs. 4000/- per month towards maintenance to wife. Being aggrieved by 5 the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Pooja Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 1021/2025, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living, hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Dushyant Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 652/2025, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revisions and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month to the wife. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to and are accordingly dismissed. 9. A copy of this order as well as original records be sent to learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Rahul Dewangan