Gidam Distt. Dantewada, Chhattisgarh v. Manisha Singh W
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:41293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 851 of 2024 Shashi Raj Singh S/o Shambhu Sharan Singh Aged About 32 Years Address - Bodhghat Colony, Harampara, Gidam, Police Station - Gidam Distt. Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Manisha Singh W/o Shashi Raj Singh Aged About 25 Years Address - Nayamunda, Tiranga Chowk, Police Station - Bodhghat Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek
Arguments
: Mr. Aditya Kumar Mishra, Advocate.. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.19 14:28:40 +0530 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.08.2025 Order on Board 1. 2. Heard Mr. Aditya Kumar Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Impugned order passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Jagdalpur dated 16/04/2024 in the case number MPC 107/2022, accepting the application of 2 the respondent for the award of maintenance be quashed and set aside, and also, This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur, in Case No. MJC 107/2022 seeking maintenance. Learned Family Court accepted the application of the respondent and ordered the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The applicant and the respondent were legally married on 30/11/2020 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Subsequently, on 23/12/2020, the respondent coerced the applicant into taking her to her parental home. The applicant complied with this request and left her there. On 11/04/2021, after a settlement was reached between the applicant and the respondent through the mediation of community members, the respondent agreed to return to her matrimonial home. However, on 08/05/2021, the respondent again coerced the applicant to return her to her parental home. The applicant complied with this request and sent her there along with his sister and brother-in-law. Since then, both husband and wife have been residing at their respective parental homes. During their brief period of cohabitation, the respondent’s conduct towards the applicant and his family members was marked by egregious discourtesy, constant quarrels, and repeated threats. She repeatedly threatened to commit suicide, to leave suicide notes falsely implicating the applicant and his family members, and to file false cases against them. Her behaviour caused severe mental distress to 3 all family members. The respondent would often demean the applicant by comparing him unfavourably with others, labelling him as inferior, and praising others she referred to as her “friends” as superior to the applicant. The applicant made every possible effort to keep her happy, but his affectionate attitude was met with hostility and infidelity, resulting in abuse and mental distress for him and his family members. 4. After 08/05/2021, the respondent has been residing at her parental home in Jagdalpur. During this period, the applicant contracted COVID-19 and had to remain in home isolation for about 20 days. During this time, they communicated by phone, and the applicant informed her about his illness. Upon recovery, the applicant requested the respondent, both verbally and in writing, to return to live with him. However, the respondent persisted in making unnecessary allegations, stating that she would not come to Geedam and could not live with the applicant and his mother. The applicant and his mother have been left alone after the death of his father, and apart from him, there is no one to support his mother. Despite several requests made verbally and in writing, the respondent has refused of her own free will to accompany the applicant. On 28/05/2021, the applicant filed a complaint with the SHO, Gidam, District Dantewada, against the respondent’s repeated threats to commit suicide, to write false suicide notes implicating the applicant and his family, and to file false cases against them. On 10/08/2021, the applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 5. The applicant had to withdraw the said application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on 20/07/2022, as the respondent intentionally did not attend Court proceedings. On 30/08/2022, the 4 respondent lodged an FIR against the applicant, his mother, and his sister under Sections 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagdalpur, District Bastar. After issuance of notice, the applicant filed his reply denying all the averments made in the application. Learned Family Court, by order dated 16/04/2024, accepted the respondent’s application and awarded her maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- 6. 7. per month. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent started residing separately from the applicant, away from her matrimonial home, without any legal or apparent reason. He submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that, after a settlement was reached between the applicant and the respondent through the mediation of community members, the respondent had agreed to return to her matrimonial home. However, she again coerced the applicant to return her to her parental home. Learned Court below has failed to appreciate the fact that during the brief periods of cohabitation, the respondent’s conduct towards the applicant and his family members was marked by egregious discourtesy, constant quarrels, and threats. She repeatedly threatened to commit suicide, threatened to write suicide notes implicating the applicant and his family members, and threatened to file false cases against them. Such conduct caused severe mental distress to the applicant and his family 5 members. He further submits that the applicant had filed a complaint with the SHO, Gidam, District Dantewada, against the repeated threats of the respondent to commit suicide, to write suicide notes falsely implicating him and his family members, and to file false criminal cases against them. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12 SCC 303 held that, while determining maintenance, Courts must consider the husband’s actual income, financial capacity, personal expenses, obligations towards dependents, existing liabilities, standard of living, and economic factors such as inflation. The learned Family Court erred in assessing the applicant’s financial condition by failing to take into account the medical expenses of his dependents, his and his dependents’ travel expenses, house rent, and other debts and liabilities. In view of these financial constraints, the Applicant is presently incapable of maintaining his wife due to circumstances beyond his control. He further submits that the respondent went to her parental home after repeatedly threatening to commit suicide, to write suicide notes implicating the Applicant and his family members, and to file false cases against them. She left without assigning any valid reason or dispute. After 08/05/2021, she decided not to return to her matrimonial home. Such conduct amounts to unreasonable cruelty upon the applicant, causing him mental agony and loss of affection. The Family Court ought to have considered this fact but instead wrongly awarded maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month, which is liable to be set-aside. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 6 10. 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