Aarang v. Seemanchal Patnayak S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28283 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 760 of 2023 1 - Smt. Swapna Patnayak W/o Shri Seemanchal Patnayak Aged About 40 Years R/o Village C Cabin (B M Y) Ward Number 32, Charoda (Bhilai), Tehsil Patan, District - Durg, C.G. Presently Both R/o - Shastri Nagar, Akoli Road Arang, Tehsil- Aarang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Alok Patnayak S/o- Shri Seemanchal Patnayak Aged About 6 Years
Legal Reasoning
Through Mother Smt. Swapna Patnayak, W/o Shri Seemanchal Patnayak, R/o Village C Cabin (B M Y) Ward Number 32, Charoda (Bhilai), Tehsil Patan, District - Durg, C.G. Presently Both R/o - Shastri Nagar, Akoli Road Arang, Tehsil- Aarang ... Applicants versus Seemanchal Patnayak S/o- Shyam Sundar Patnayak Aged About 45 Years R/o - Cabin (B M Y) Ward Number 32, Charoda (Bhilai), Tehsil Patan, District - Durg, C.G. ---- Respondents RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 21.06.2023 2 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 656/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the respondent/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month to the applicant No.2 and did not granted any amount of maintenance to the applicant No.1. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicants have filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month to applicant No. 01 and Rs. 10,000/- per month to applicant No. 02. The marriage between the applicant No.1 and the respondent took place on 14.07.2013 according to the rituals and customs of the society at village Aarang and 1 child (applicant No. 02) was born out of the said wedlock on 05.01.2017. It has been alleged that after the birth of the child the respondent started mentally and physically harassing the applicant No. 01 and forced her to live separately and after she left the house the respondent neither contacted her nor took her back. When the applicant No. 01 tried to come back to her marital house the respondent refused to keep her. It has been averred in the application that the applicant No. 01 does not have any source of income to take care of her child and is dependent on her father. It has been averred in the application that the respondent works as a contractor and earns around Rs. 60-70,000/- per month. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has 3 denied the averments raised by the applicants. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant no.1 and the respondent. the learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has partially allowed the application filed by the applicants herein and has held, that the applicant No. 01 is not entitled for any maintenance as she is living separately without any sufÏcient cause and the applicant no 02 is entitled for Rs. 3500/- per month from the date of the filing of the application. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the maintenance award that has been awarded is not sufÏcient for the parties to lead a normal life. It is further submitted that learned court erroneously held that the applicant No. 01 is living separately without any sufÏcient cause. The learned Family Court has erroneously held that the applicant No. 01 has stated in her statement that she wants to live with the husband but with a separate kitchen therefore the applicant is living separately without any reasonable cause. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that there are allegations of harassment on the family members also due to which it has become difÏcult for the applicant to reside with the family of the husband. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal and liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 656/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur, partly allowed the application 4 under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the respondent/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month to the applicant No.2 and did not granted any amount of maintenance to the applicant No.1, 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 order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, 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. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Rajshekhar Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice