Gajendra Kumar Soni S/o Late Chotelal Soni Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Chaal v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:41299 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 714 of 2024 Gajendra Kumar Soni S/o Late Chotelal Soni Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Chaal, Tahsil Dharamjagarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Shakuntala Soni W/o Gajendra Kumar Soni Aged About 50 Years Residing At Kabir Chowk, Jute Mill, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.18 17:25:58 +0530 2. Minor Shubham Soni S/o Gajendra Kumar Soni Aged About 16
Legal Reasoning
Years Represented Through Respondent No. 1/mother Namely Smt. Shakuntala Soni, Residing At Kabir Chowk, Jute Mill, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For applicant(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.08.2025 Order on Board 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 09.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. F-159/2019, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the 2 CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 4,000/- per month to respondent No.2. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 11.05.2005 as per Hindu rites and customs. The applicant was earlier married to one Uma Soni on 30.05.1996. From this marriage, two children — Babita Soni and Yogendra Soni — were born. Uma Soni passed away on 11.08.2002. Thereafter, the applicant married Respondent No. 1 on 11.05.2005. On 24.06.2008, a son named Shubhan Soni (Respondent No. 2) was born from the second marriage. Initially, the applicant treated Respondent No. 1 well for about two years. However, thereafter, he allegedly began harassing her, stating that he was destined to have a third wife due to indications in his horoscope. He would threaten to abandon her and remarry. When Respondent No. 1 objected, the applicant allegedly abused and assaulted her. Even after the birth of their son, there was no improvement in the applicant’s behavior. He allegedly pressured Respondent No. 1 to bring money from her elder and younger sisters, both of whom were employed. He also asked her to bring her younger sister to live with them. When she refused, in 2009, the applicant reportedly beat her and threw her out of the house, forcing her to return to her maternal home in Village Sahaspur, Sarangarh, where she has been residing since. After the marriage in 2005, the applicant and Respondent No. 1 lived together in Village Chaal until 3 10.07.2007. In August 2007, Respondent No. 1 went to her maternal home, claiming it was for a short visit, but she stayed there for approximately 11 years. During this time, on 24.06.2008, she gave birth to Respondent No. 2. The applicant made several attempts, both personally and through social intervention, to bring her back, but she refused to return. Furthermore, it is alleged that Respondent No. 1 has repeatedly attempted to implicate the applicant in false cases, including a domestic violence complaint filed at the Raigarh police station, which has since been dismissed. Thereafter, by final order dated 09.02.2024, the learned Family Court, Raigarh, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, partially allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the respondents, granting maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to Respondent No. 2. Accordingly, a total maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month was directed to be paid by the applicant herein. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the findings arrived at by the learned Family Court while passing the impugned order are perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, and suffer from material irregularities and misappropriation of evidence. The learned Court failed to appreciate that the applicant had taken three LIC policies in the name of the respondents. Specifically, two policies were taken in the name of Respondent No. 1, with annual and monthly premiums of Rs. 7,716/- and Rs. 2,087/- respectively, and one policy in the name of Respondent No. 2, with a half-yearly premium of Rs. 24,285/-, all of which were regularly paid 4 by the applicant. The respondents hold full authority over these policies. This fact clearly establishes that the applicant has always provided for the respondents. Additionally, a Recurring Deposit (RD) account in the name of Respondent No. 1 was maintained with a monthly deposit of Rs. 10,000/-, which matured in 2020. The maturity amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was duly credited to the respondent’s account. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that Respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial home voluntarily. The applicant is not responsible for her departure, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. The Court erred in not recognizing that there exists no sufficient cause for the respondent to reside separately from her husband. No credible legal evidence has been produced by the respondent to prove allegations of torture or harassment by the applicant or his family members. 4. 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 09.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. F-159/2019, 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.8,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 4,000/- per month to respondent No.2, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the respondent is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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, 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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