Ishwardan Kujur S/o Late Dakhal Sai Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Budar (Bartariya v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:41301 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 669 of 2024 Ishwardan Kujur S/o Late Dakhal Sai Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Budar (Bartariya Para), Police Station Patna, Tehsil- Baikunthpur, District-Korea, Chhattisgarh, Hall Location-Forest Office (Ranger), Sonhat Police Station And Tehsil-Sonhat, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. … Applicant versus 1. Mrs. Sumitra Kujur W/o Ishwardan Kujur, Aged About 38 Years R/o Phoolpur Near Panchayat Bhawan, Police Station Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District-Korea, Chhattisgarh PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.18 15:08:30 +0530 2. Son Kujur S/o Ishwardan Kujur Aged About 14 Years Minor , Guardian Mother Non Applicant No. 01 Mrs. Sumitra Kujur, R/o Phoolpur Near Panchayat Bhawan, Police Station Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District-Korea, Chhattisgarh 3. Anshukala Kujur D/o Ishwardan Kujur Aged About 11 Years Minor , Guardian Mother Non Applicant No. 01 Mrs. Sumitra Kujur, R/o Phoolpur Near Panchayat Bhawan, Police Station Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District-Korea, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.08.2025 Order on Board 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.05.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh Camp – Baikunthpur, District - Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 59/2023, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs. 2,500/- per month to respondent No.3 as maintenance. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of respondent No. 1 with the applicant was solemnized in 2007 according to Hindu law and social customs. Respondent No. 1 lived peacefully with the applicant for three years. Thereafter, the applicant began physically assaulting her under the influence of alcohol and subjected her to constant quarrels and harassment, particularly over religious conversion and other trivial matters. Being the only child of her parents, Respondent No. 1 was also subjected to demands of Rs. 5 lakhs and a four- wheeler. Despite several social settlements and the lodging of a police complaint regarding the applicant’s behavior, the abuse continued. As a result, Respondent No. 1 was forced to leave the matrimonial home and now resides at her parental house along with her children. It is submitted that the applicant works as a beat guard in the Forest Department, Sonhat, and earns approximately 3 Rs. 40,000 per month. Additionally, he owns agricultural land in Village Budar, from which he earns around Rs. 20,000 monthly. Therefore, Respondent No. 1 has claimed maintenance of Rs. 10,000 for herself and Rs. 5,000 each for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3—her children—totaling Rs. 20,000 per month. The fact that the respondent lived with the applicant in her matrimonial home along with her three children is undisputed. 3. In his reply, the applicant denied the core allegations and facts stated by the respondent. He contended that Respondent No. 1 is not his legally wedded wife and has never lived with him in that capacity. He denied having ever abused, assaulted, or harassed her for religious conversion. He further claimed that Respondent No. 1 was previously married to Ramdayal Oraon, a resident of Village Dhodapara, P.S. Patna, and that no divorce has been obtained from him. The parents of Respondent No. 1 allegedly told the applicant that, as they had no son, he could live in their SECL Charcha quarter and do household chores. Over time, a romantic relationship developed between Respondent No. 1 and the applicant, leading to the birth of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The applicant stated that he and Respondent No. 1 belong to the same caste and that he was falsely accused of religious conversion before being thrown out of the house. He further claimed that Respondent No. 1’s father, after retiring from Kalri, built a permanent house in Village Phulpur, where the applicant currently resides. While he lived with the respondent's family, he was regularly insulted and humiliated in front of the children. The applicant alleged that Respondent No. 1 sold his 4 ancestral land in Village Bartarihapara and purchased 3.65 acres of land in Village Sundarpur, which she registered in her own name. Moreover, she does not allow him to meet the children. He stated that he currently works as a peon in the Forest Department, earning Rs. 15,000 per month, and is willing to take custody of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and provide for their maintenance. Since Respondent No. 1 is not his legally wedded wife, he argued that her application should be dismissed. After a full trial, the Family Court held that Respondent No. 1 is unable to maintain herself, and the applicant has sufficient means to provide for her. Accordingly, the Family Court allowed the application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the Family Court committed a legal error by failing to apply the correct principles of evidence appreciation applicable to the present case. The Family Court erred in holding that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant. This conclusion is unsustainable in law and is not supported by conclusive evidence. The circumstantial evidence on record does not corroborate such a finding. The Family Court further misapplied the provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which includes within the definition of "wife" a woman who has been divorced and has not remarried. In the present case, there is no proof of a valid marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 in the first place. The maintenance awarded in favor of the respondents is on the higher side, considering the financial condition and limited income of the applicant. The evidence clearly establishes that Respondent No. 1, by selling a portion of the applicant's land in 5 Village Bartarihapara, purchased 3 acres and 65 decimals of land in Village Sundarpur, which she has registered in her own name. The Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence and material on record, arbitrarily allowed the maintenance application of Respondent No. 1. The Family Court failed to acknowledge that the applicant had just and sufficient grounds for not cohabiting with
Decision
Respondent No. 1. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set- aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 23.05.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh Camp – Baikunthpur, District - Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 59/2023, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs. 2,500/- per month to respondent No.3 as maintenance, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the non-applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by 6 the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the respondents, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original record be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Preeti Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice