Rohit Sumit James S/o Shri Surendra James Aged About 36 Years Permanent Address- 123 v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37955 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 643 of 2021 Rohit Sumit James S/o Shri Surendra James Aged About 36 Years Permanent Address- 123 Church Compound, Barariyapura Road, Chindwara District Chindwara (M.P.) Present Address Joy Residency, Flat No. 302, Mangla, Kududand Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus 1.
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice
Arguments
Smt. Rachana James W/o Rohit Sumit James Aged About 35 Years R/o Street No. 1, Ashish Nagar (West), Risali, Police Station Newai, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 2. Anya James D/o Rohit Sumit James, Aged About 7 Years Through Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Rachana James R/o Street No. 1, Ashish Nagar (West), Risali, Police Station Newai, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate.. For Respondents : Mr. Suraj Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.04 11:05:05 +0530 01.08.2025 Arjun Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Rao, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also head Mr. Suraj Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Arjun Yadav, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following 2 prayer: “In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned Order dated 06.03.2021 passed in M.Cr. C. No. 366/2018 (A-2) by Family Court, Durg, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent No. 01 were married on 31.10.2012 under Christian customs and culture, in the presence of their parents, friends, and relatives. Out of this wedlock, they were blessed with a girl child named Ku. Anya James (respondent No. 2). Differences arose between the applicant and respondent No. 1 due to certain unfounded allegations that the applicant was involved in an illicit and unlawful relationship with another woman. It was alleged that he used to send vulgar messages, watch obscene content on his mobile phone, and live in adultery. Upon confrontation by respondent No. 1, the applicant subjected her and their minor daughter to cruelty. As a result, respondent No. 1 left the applicant’s company and began residing with her parents at her parental home along with her daughter (respondent No. 2). Based on the aforementioned circumstances, respondent No. 1 filed a divorce petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, before the 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, registered as Civil Suit No. 196A/2018. 4. The applicant filed his counter reply and denied the allegations. However, in subsequent proceedings, the applicant remained absent. Consequently, the Family Court proceeded ex-parte and, vide its judgment and decree dated 04.10.2019, dissolved the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1. A copy of the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 196A/2018 dated 04.10.2019 is annexed 3 herewith as Annexure A-1. 5. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973, before the 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, vide M.Cr.C. No. 366/2018, seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Upon receipt of notice, the applicant appeared and filed a counter afÏdavit. While admitting the marriage and the birth of the daughter, he denied all other allegations. He submitted that despite the divorce decree, he was still ready and willing to keep the respondents with him. He also contended that since respondent No. 1 voluntarily left his company and chose to stay with her parents, he was not liable to pay any maintenance, and hence prayed for the dismissal of the said application. 6. Learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, vide its judgment and order dated 06.03.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 366/2018, observed that the allegations made by respondent No. 1 were not proven, as no substantial evidence was brought on record. However, considering the fact that the parties were divorced, the court held that the respondents had sufÏcient grounds to live separately and ordered the applicant to pay maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973, amounting to Rs. 4,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 2. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence placed on record by the parties. Therefore, the impugned order dated 06.03.2021 (Annexure A-2) is bad in law as well as on facts. The applicant is employed in a private firm, and the respondents have not produced any documentary evidence to prove their claim that the applicant earns a salary of Rs. 37,000/- per 4 month. The applicant has the responsibility of taking care of his aged, retired father. He has always been willing to maintain the respondents, but it was only at the instance of respondent No. 1—following the divorce decree—that the impugned maintenance order came to be passed. He submits that respondent No. 1 voluntarily left the company of the applicant and filed a divorce petition with vague and unsubstantiated allegations of cruelty, which were not conclusively proved. Although the applicant initially filed a counter reply, he later remained ex parte before the trial court. Subsequently, a decree of divorce was passed on 04.10.2019. The applicant has since remarried, and from his limited and justifiable salary, it is not possible for him to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000/- to the respondents. He further submits that the respondent No. 1 was habituated to a luxurious lifestyle, and under her pressure, the applicant had purchased a luxury car and regularly paid heavy monthly installments from his salary. This fact was admitted by respondent No. 1. Although the said car was completely damaged in an accident, it was exchanged and replaced by another vehicle. The applicant is still paying Rs. 16,500/- per month to the financial institution/bank. However, this material fact was not considered by the learned Family Court while passing the impugned order (Annexure A-2). He further submits that the applicant has already incurred substantial expenses for the education of respondent No. 1, who pursued M.A. (English) and B.Ed. These facts were admitted by respondent No. 1 herself, but they were not taken into account by the learned Court while passing the impugned order. He further submits that the divorce decree was passed because the applicant failed to appear and present his evidence before the court. Therefore, the impugned maintenance order (Annexure A-2), which is based solely on the existence of a divorce 5 between the applicant and respondent No. 1, is incorrect and liable to be set aside. He submits that respondent No. 1 is well-qualified, holding a postgraduate degree along with a B.Ed. She voluntarily left the company of the applicant. Hence, after the divorce decree passed by a competent Court, the applicant should not be held liable to pay maintenance. Being qualified, respondent No. 1 is capable of earning her livelihood and should not depend on the applicant for maintenance. 8. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by