Ashok Baghel v. Shashi Baghel

Shashi Baghel D/o Peelaram Mahilange Aged About 28 Years W/o Ashok Baghel R/o Village Jagdalla Tehsil Road Shankar Nagar District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Presently R/o Village Manua P.S. Pachpedi District Bilaspur (C.G.)

Yachana Baghel D/o Ashok Baghel Aged About 9 Years Res No. 2 Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Shashi Baghel W/o Ashok Baghel R/o Village Jagdalla Tehsil Road Shankar Nagar District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Presently R/o Village Manua P.S. Pachpedi District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant

: Mr. Swapnil Thawaney, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

29.06.2026 Order on Board

2. Heard Mr. Swapnil Thawaney, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: 2 “1. Set aside / quash the order dated 22.05.26 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur (C.G.) (Annexure P-3) in the larger interest of justice.

2. To grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case including cost of the petition.”

Facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent No.1 were married to each other on 16.02.2014 as per Hindu rites and customs at Village Manuva, P.S. Pachpedi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Out of the said wedlock, respondent No.2, namely Yachana Baghel, was born and is presently residing with respondent No.1. Due to differences between the husband and wife, the applicant and respondent No.1 have been living separately since 2022. Thereafter, she filed an application before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 claimed maintenance of Rs.16,000/- from the applicant before the Family Court, Bilaspur.

After receipt of notice, the applicant, being the respondent before the Family Court, filed his written statement denying the allegations and contentions made in the application. The matter is still pending, and no witness has been examined nor has any evidence been produced by respondent No.1.

The applicant had repeatedly found respondent No.1 in a closed room with one Sumit Baghel, due to which respondent No.1 is making false allegations against the applicant. Upon being caught in a closed room with Sumit Baghel, respondent No.1 herself called her family members and went to her parental home and assured the applicant that she would 3 not file any case or complaint against him. However, despite such assurance, she subsequently filed the present case against the applicant.

The learned Family Court, Bilaspur, vide its impugned order dated

22.05.2026, directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2, totalling Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated

22.05.2026 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, is contrary to the law, facts, and circumstances of the present case. He submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered the grounds taken in the written statement and should not have granted maintenance to respondent No.1 without appreciation of the evidence. The learned Court ought to have decided the application only after appreciating the evidence led by both the parties. He submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that respondent No.1 is living separately from the applicant without any justifiable or sufficient cause. He also submits that the respondent No.1 had, after a mutual settlement, received all her gold and silver jewellery worth approximately Rs.8,00,000/- from the applicant as a lump sum settlement and had assured the applicant that she would not claim any maintenance from him in future. The learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that the applicant is a poor person, is not employed on a fixed salary, and it is not possible for him to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondents. The learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that the respondents have filed the application only to harass the applicant and to extort money from him, therefore, the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside and/or suitably modified. 4

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition.

Accordingly, the prayer made to quash / modify the impugned order is refused.