Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Vishwanath Rajwade S/o Shyamlal Rajwade Caste- Rajwar, Posted As Shiksha Ka
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:25080 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 692 of 2018 Smt. Anjani Rajwade W/o Vishwanath Rajwade Aged About 32 Years Caste- Rajwar, Occupation- Housewife, Uchdih (Badkapara), Chowki- Basdei, Police Station- Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. At Present Address- Kanchanpur (Patelpara), Police Station- Dhourpur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Vishwanath Rajwade S/o Shyamlal Rajwade Caste- Rajwar, Posted As Shiksha Karmi Grade-1, Higheer Secondary School, Shirsi, R/o- Uchdih (Badkapara), Chowki- Basdei, Police Station- Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. The applicant seek to challenge the order dated 25.05.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge of Family Court, Ambikapur District- Surguja, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 174/2015 whereby, the learned Principal Judge, has allowed the application filed by the 2 applicant/wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and directed the non-applicant/husband to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance, however, according to the applicant/wife, since the said amount is on a much lower side, she seek enhancement of the same by way of this revision petition. 2. Brief facts according to the applicant is that the applicant was married to the non-applicant on 23/05/2000 through Hindu rites and rituals, including the traditional saat phere. At the time of marriage, the non-applicant/husband was unemployed, and he began demanding ₹2,00,000/- from the applicant’s father for securing a job. However, as the applicant’s community does not follow the dowry system, her father refused to pay the amount. From the marital relationship between the applicant and the non-applicant, a son named Durgesh Rajwade was born on 06/01/2006, who was at that time aged about 11 years old. While the applicant and the non- applicant were living together and trying to sustain their marital life, frequent disputes arose. During that time, their second son, Suraj Rajwade, was born on 12/07/2009, who was aged about at that time 5 years old. After the birth of both children, the non-applicant began to suspect the applicant’s character and physically assaulted her. Despite this, the applicant continued to live with the non- applicant, bearing everything silently. Multiple community meetings were held to resolve the issues between the applicant and the non- applicant, but the non-applicant refused to take the applicant back into his home. When the non-applicant was unemployed, he started a grocery store and assigned its management to the applicant while 3 he went elsewhere. Upon returning home, if he saw the applicant speaking with customers in the shop, he would accuse her of being of questionable character and would beat her at night after the shop was closed, locking her inside the house. Due to the harassment and torture inflicted by the non-applicant, the applicant was residing at her parental home in Kanchanpur since June 2015. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the non-applicant/husband before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance. She stated that the non-applicant is employed as a Shiksha Karmi (Education Worker) Grade-1 and earns a monthly salary of ₹21,000/-. In addition, he possesses substantial movable and immovable property. Therefore, requesting a monthly maintenance amount of ₹5,000/- from the non-applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 25.05.2018 so far granting maintenance on lower side, is perverse, being illegal, erroneous and contrary to the material evidence available on record, therefore liable to be set- aside. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that it is admitted fact that the applicant and non- applicant are the husband and wife and also it is admitted fact that both are living separately and the applicant has no source of income to maintain herself. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant is posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I (Teacher Panchayat) and at present he used to draw salary of Rs. 32,257/- per month. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant being wife, is entitled to enjoy living standard at part to 4 the non-applicant. He has also failed to appreciate that the applicant being a lady, is required to cloths and other make-up articles and in present scenario of society, the maintenance awarded in favour of applicant, is not sufÏcient. He further submits that the learned Family Court ought to have awarded proper maintenance in favour of applicant, as she has no source of income and the applicant is living separately on account of reasonable ground, which is evident from the fact that the divorce petition filed by the non-applicant has been dismissed by the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the evidence of the applicant was not rebutted. Hence, deserves to be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the impugned order, in which no interference is called for. 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 has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and has granted maintenance of Rs. 2000/- observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal