Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 581 of 2021 1 - Smt. Gomti Sao W/o Vimal Sao Aged About 35 Years No Occupation, R/o Village Semibhawar, Thana And Tahsil Pussor, District Raigarh Present Resident Of Village Dumarpali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Dravid Sao S/o Vimal Sao Aged About 15 Years Applicant No. 2
Legal Reasoning
Being Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Gomti Sao, R/o Village Semibhawar, Thana And Tahsil Pussor, District Raigarh Present Resident Of Village Dumarpali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicants Vimal Sao S/o Babulal Sao Aged About 40 Years Occupation Contractor, Transporting And Agriculture, Resident Of Village Semibhawar, Thana And Tahsil Pussor, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.07.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel the applicants. Also heard Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel for the non-applicant. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision by setting-aside the order impugned dated 03.07.2021, so far refusing maintenance to applicant no. 1 and giving lesser amount of maintenance to applicant no. 2 be enhanced, till then amount granted be paid to applicant no. 2, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of ₹20,000/- for applicant No. 1 (wife) and applicant No. 2 (son). Applicant No. 1 was married to the non-applicant about 18 years ago as per Hindu rites, and two sons, Anurag and Dravid, were born from the wedlock. While Anurag resides with the non- applicant, Dravid is with the applicant. The applicants alleged that after initial years of marriage, they were subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment, and were ultimately beaten and driven out of the house on 06.05.2019. Reconciliation attempts by villagers failed, and the applicants began residing at the wife’s parental home in Dumarpali. The non-applicant is alleged to be financially well-off, working as a contractor, owning a tractor, irrigated agricultural land, and earning around ₹50,000–₹60,000 per month from these sources. He is also alleged to be living in an illicit relationship with another woman. In his reply, the non-applicant denied all 3 allegations, stating that the wife left the matrimonial home without sufÏcient reason, refused reconciliation efforts, and was capable of earning her livelihood. He claimed to be a daily wage laborer earning ₹3,000–₹3,500 per month, and expressed willingness to keep the applicants with him. After evaluating the evidence, the learned trial court noted the absence of a police complaint or income proof, and granted ₹2,000/- monthly maintenance to applicant No. 2 (minor son) from the date of application (20.05.2019), while rejecting applicant No. 1’s claim. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the trial Court erred in rejecting the claim of applicant No. 1 and granting only a meager maintenance to applicant No. 2, as it failed to consider crucial documents which were handed over by the applicants to their counsel but were not filed, including a police report dated 07.05.2019, photographs and registration details of the non-applicant’s tractor and car (Annexures B & C), land records in the name of the non-applicant’s father (Annexure D), and evidence of the non-applicant’s house and vehicle ownership (Annexure E). Furthermore, the court failed to comply with the mandatory direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (AIR 2021 SC 569) by not calling for an afÏdavit of disclosure from the non- applicant regarding his income and assets. The finding that applicant No. 1 left the matrimonial home voluntarily is perverse, especially in light of allegations that the non-applicant was living with another woman, Champa Bai, which justified the applicant’s 4
Decision
separation. In view of these lapses, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after taking the above documents on record and directing the non- applicant to file an income afÏdavit. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rightly passed its order after a fair and reasoned assessment of the pleadings, evidence, and legal principles under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court noted that applicant No. 1 failed to file any police report or submit reliable documentary evidence to support her allegations of cruelty, dowry demands, or the non-applicant’s alleged high income. In view of these omissions, and considering the non-applicant’s willingness to maintain her and the absence of proof that she was unable to maintain herself, the Court correctly rejected her claim. At the same time, the Court appropriately upheld the right of the minor son to maintenance and awarded ₹2,000/- per month from the date of application, which reflects a balanced and lawful exercise of judicial discretion. 5 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan