Ajit Sidar, S/o Sankhan Sai Aged About 26 Years, Caste- Gonde, Occupation Govt- Servant v. Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.04.21 17:32:07 +0530
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1090 of 2016 Ajit Sidar, S/o Sankhan Sai Aged About 26 Years, Caste- Gonde, Occupation Govt- Servant, R/o Village- Bagbahar, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, Civil And Revenue District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant/Non-applicant versus Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.04.21 17:32:07 +0530
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Yasoda Sidar, W/o Ajit Sidar Aged About 28 Years Caste-Gonde Occupation R/o Village- Bagbahar, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Police Line- Jashpur Nagar Civil And Revenue District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent/Applicant For Applicant : Shri Piyush Patnaik appears on behalf of Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 17/04/2025 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act is directed against the order dated 24.10.2016 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.19/2015 by the learned Family Court, Jashpur (CG) whereby the application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance has been allowed by the learned Family Court, while directing the applicant to pay Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife, respondent herein. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/wife preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance against her husband, applicant 2 herein, before the Family Court, Jashpur pleading therein that her marriage with the applicant was solemnised on 19.05.2009 at village Baghbahar, Dist. Jashpur as per social customs. After marriage, the respondent joined the company of the applicant and started living her marital life and after 2 years of marriage, the applicant and in- laws started torturing her for demand of dowry of 2 lakhs and motorcycle as the applicant was posted as Radiographer in Government Hospital, Manora and upon expressing her inability, they committed assault on her on each and every occasion and stopped to offer food and water to her. It is further pleaded that the applicant, after leaving the respondent at her parental home, came to Manora where he lives. A social meeting was also conducted and the applicant was suggested to keep her wife, but the applicant has refused. Being fed up with the persistent ill-treatment, the respondent is compelled to file report against the applicant and in-laws on 07.05.2014. It is also pleaded by her that since the applicant got Government job earning Rs.20,000/- per month, therefore, she may be granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- as maintenance. 3. By filing written statement, the applicant admitted his marriage with the respondent solemnied on 19.05.2009 as per social customs. It is also admitted by him that he is Government employee, however, denied commission of maarpeet with the respondent. It was further pleaded that the respondent was living adulterous life as she has maintained relationship with one Constable Kosho, Not only this, the respondent/wife has also maintained relationship with many persons. It was also pleaded that after marriage, the respondent was provided complete training computer course and for that expenses was borne out by him. On the basis of above pleadings, the respondent urged that the application filed by the respondent be dismissed. 4. Both the parties led their evidence and after appreciation of evidence, the learned Family Court held that the respondent is entitled to get maintenance and thus directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, this revision. 3 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that as per pleadings in the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the respondent is competent to maintain herself as she is working as labourer, wife herself was not willing to live with her husband, for which, sufficient cause has been shown on behalf of wife. Further submits that the husband though admitted that after deduction he is getting salary of Rs.16,000/- per month, but the maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- fixed by the learned Family Court is on higher side, which may suitably be reduced. On these premises, he urged that the impugned order may be modified and suitable amount may be fixed as maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for respondent/wife submits that after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the learned Family Court was fully justified in granting Rs.8,000/- as maintenance. He further submits that the applicant levelled baseless allegation against his wife about her character, but the applicant has not filed any clinching and cogent evidence which points out her character. He further submits that after marriage, the applicant got government job in Primary Health Center, Manora where he was living with other colleagues but is not willing to live with his wife and when the applicant was living with respondent/wife, he used to assault his wife, which compelled her wife to live apart from him. He further submits that sufficient reason was shown by the respondent/wife to live apart from the husband. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. It is not disputed that the applicant and respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnised on 19.05.2009. It is also not in dispute that applicant/husband is employed in Government Hospital. Respondent / Wife (A.W.1) has stated in her statement that after marriage, they were living happily for two years and thereafter the husband got government service as Radiographer at Manora and he started living there ever since he got government job and did not initiate any step to take her with him at Manora. She has further stated that when she was living at matrimonial house, the applicant/husband and in-laws used to beat 4 her and torture her in connection with demand of dowry, which forced her to come to her parental house. Thereafter, she lodged a report of incident of assault in the Police Station, Kotwali, Jashpur vide Ex.P.1. She further admits that the applicant got computer course done at his own expenses. Her statement was corroborated by A.W.2 Gulab Singh Sidar. Perusal of record coupled with her statement shows that a report was lodged by her for the offence punishable under Secftions 498-A, 506, 34 and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on 07.05.2014. 9. Applicant / Husband Ajit Sidar (N.A.W.1) has stated in his statement that in the year 2011 he got employment on the post of Radiographer in the Primary Health Center, Manora and since he was residing with his colleagues, therefore, it was not possible for him to take his wife and to keep her in Manora. He further admitted in his cross-examination that the respondent/wife lived comfortably in his house for about two years after marriage and thereafter differences and disputes arose after he got job. Although he has stated that whenever his wife goes to her parental house at Jashpur, she used to live in the house of one Koso Singh, but he has not stated that his wife was leading adulterous life in his statement. Therefore, the applicant/husband has failed to prove that wife was leading the adulterous life. Further, a perusal of record, it is clear that after two years of marriage, the applicant got a government job in Primary Health Center, Manora and after getting such job, the applicant started living there with his colleagues and is not willing to keep his wife with him, It is also clear from perusal of record that respondent/wife was forced to live apart from her husband and in this way, the respondent/wife has shown sufficient cause to live apart from her husband. 10. As regards the grant of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance towards wife by the learned Family Court, it is clear from the statement of N.A.W. 1 Ajit Sidar, applicant/husband herein, that he is getting Rs.16,000/- per month by working as Radiographer in Primary Health Center, Manora, however, the learned Family Court granted maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month payable to the wife, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, appears to be on higher side. Thus, considering 5 the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the admission by the respondent/wife in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that she is earning her livelihood by working as labourer, ends of justice would be served if the maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month as fixed by the learned Family Court, is reduced to Rs.5,000/- per month. 11.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Jashpur, is modified and accordingly it is held that respondent / wife is now entitled to get Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance in place of Rs.8,000/- per month, from the applicant/husband. Rest of the conditions of the impugned order shall remain in tact. 12. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed in part. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani