Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 541 of 2021 Sudardhan Bhaskar S/o Shri Gopal Bhaskar, Aged About 35 Years R/o Behind Railway Station, Near Savitri Nagar, Mithumuda, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Babita Bhaskar W/o Shri Sudardhan Bhaskar, D/o Shri Narsingh Mahilane, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bilaspur, Post And P.S. Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bhatgaon, District Baloda Bazar, At Present House Of Bhojram Tandon, Mithumuda, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant For Respondent : : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Harishankar Patel, Advocate. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 21.07.2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 1. 2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Harishankar Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 06.08.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. F-21/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Raigarh, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent wife filed an application under 2 Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance before the Family Court Raigarh from the husband stating that the marriage between the party performed on 30.04.2012 as per their religion and custom at Bilaspur and from the wedlock one male child born on 20.09.17 and he alive for 5 months and thereafter the male child died during treatment at Kilkari Hospital Raipur as he was suffering from heart disease. At the time of marriage, her father gave gifts as gold and silver ornaments and also gave cash amount and as total expenses were 3 lakhs were made. The applicant also demanded more money for purchase of motor cycle. The Respondent gave the amount on taking loan and she is paying the installment. After marriage, the respondent was residing with the husband and during that period, the husband and his relatives demanded dowry and the articles which she brought, was kept by the mother in law. She has been mentally and physically harassed by the relatives of the husband/applicant. She has not been given treatment when she was delivered child. The applicant made doubt regarding relation to the respondent with another person and as such he tortured her mentally and physically. He abused her and threatened her to give divorce. When she was tortured her, she took a house on rent in the muhalla Atarmuda and she residing there. There was meeting of her family members and relatives and it was advised not to harass the respondent. One divorce paper was prepared on 26.04.2018 and it has been signed by the parties in present of social meeting. Thereafter it is alleged that the applicant and his family members thrown out from the house and she is residing at present at Atarmuda Raigarhit has been further pleaded in the application that the applicant is working as worker in Atiya Birla Hindolko Company, Milupara Tamnar mines Distt. Raigari 3 and earning of Rs. 20,000/- per month. It has been also alleged that there is agricultural land in name of his grandfather and he is working of agricultural work and he earned Rs.4,00,000/- from agricultural products. As such the respondent prayed before the Family Court that the maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondents per month may be granted against the applicant as maintenance amount. The respondent filed in the application before the Family Court, Raigarh and prayed that the application may be allowed and the applicant may be directed to pay amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent as maintenance amount. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondent. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has not appreciated the evidence of the applicant and his witnesses regarding the respondent who is living separately without any cogent and sufÏcient reasons and also there is no prove that the
Decision
applicant has tortured her. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the 4 submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. F-21/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Raigarh, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, 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. 7. 8. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar