Bemetara, Chhattisgarh v. Hukum Patel S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:24925 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 183 of 2017 1 - Smt. Kritika @ Radhika Patel W/o Hukum Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Present R/o Village- Karamal, Police Station And Tahsil- Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Shubham Patel S/o Hukum Patel Aged About 12 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian I.E. Mother Namely Kritika Patel W/o Hukum Patel, R/o Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Present R/o Village- Karamal, Police Station And Tahsil- Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus
Legal Reasoning
appreciated that, there is no dispute that, the applicant No. 1 is the wife of the respondent and applicant No. 2 is his son, and therefore the respondent can not escape from his liability to maintain them. The learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that, there is ample evidence available on record, to suggest that, the respondent is willfully not keeping the applicant No.1 with him and therefore he is liable to pay maintenance as per the minimum standard of living of the applicants. The learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that, the applicant No.2 is student and presently he is studying in class 10 th and in a meager sum of Rs. 1,500/- it is almost impossible to maintain a growing child and therefore also, the amount of maintenance is required to be enhanced. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the 4 applicant, and from the perusal of the judgments/orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court (Link Court), Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2016 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 129/2012, whereby the learned Family Court concerned has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants for grant of maintenance, and ordered the respondent/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the applicant No. 1/wife and 1,500/- per month to the applicant No.2/daughter, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Registrar (Judicial) 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. 7. 8. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar
Arguments
Hukum Patel S/o Shri Maniram Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant For Respondent : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. : None. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. 2. Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. None appears for the private respondent. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.09.2016 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court (Link Court), Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Misc. 2 Criminal Case No. 129/2012, whereby the learned Family Court concerned has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants for grant of maintenance, and ordered the respondent/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the applicant No. 1/wife and 1,500/- per month to the applicant No.2/daughter. Hence, the applicants preferred this Criminal Revision. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant no. 1 had filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC inter-alia on the ground that, the marriage of the applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized in the year 1995 at village Karamal, Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) according to Hindu Rites and out of said wedlock, they have been blessed with two children namely Saurabh and Shubham (applicant No.2) herein. after few years of marriage, the relation between the applicant No.1 and respondent started becoming strained and un-cordial. The respondent used to neglect the applicant and their children and the elderly members of the family and often use to humiliate them for no reason. Earlier also, the respondent had thrown out the applicant No.1 from his house and it is only when the members of the society intervened, then the respondent kept the applicant No.1 with him. Even at the time, when the applicant No.1 was suffering from pain in her Uterus and had not taken care of her and again thrown her out of his house. Thereafter on 01.11.2010 meeting of community was convened wherein the respondent had given undertaking that he will keep the applicant No.1 without any trouble but now again the respondent has committed marpeet and thrown her and applicant No.2 out of his house. It is averred that, the applicant No.1 had no source of earning, whereas the respondent is having 4 acres of agricultural land and he is also engaged 3 in a business of selling vegetables and out of these sources he earns 4 lac rupees per year and hence, the applicants may be granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3000/- each. The respondent filed his reply to the said application and averred that the applicant No.1 is in a habit of going to her parents house and when in the year 2004. The learned Family Court, has partly allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance and a very meager sum of Rs. 2500/- per month has been granted to the applicant No. 1 and 1500/- per month to the applicant No. 2. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous, unjust, unreasonable and illegal and same has been passed on the basis of conjuncture and surmises and therefore same deserves to be to be suitably modified and the amount of maintenance is liable to be enhanced to Rs. 6,000/-. The learned Family Court ought to have