Dharmendra Sen S/o Ramkishun Sen Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sakri, Police Station v. 1. Minor Kumari Vankshika Sen D/o Dharmendra Sen Aged About 3 Years
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 821 of 2023 Dharmendra Sen S/o Ramkishun Sen Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sakri, Police Station And Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) Present Address Sabji Mandi, Road, New Fassion Tailor, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Minor Kumari Vankshika Sen D/o Dharmendra Sen Aged About 3 Years,
Legal Reasoning
Through Natural Guardian Her Mother Namely Smt. Premlata Sen, R/o Village Sakri, Police Station And Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Present Address Ward No. 12, Simga, Police Station And Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2. Smt. Premlata Sen W/o Dharmendra Sen Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sakri, Police Station And Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Present Address Ward No. 12, Simga, Police Station And Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.06 19:00:19 +0530 For Applicant : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05.08.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Akath Kuamr Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents submits that 2 he has filed his power before the Registry of this Court today to argue the matter. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 07.07.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Baloda Bazar, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.227/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent No.1/daughter and Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent No.2/wife. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, seeking maintenance of :50,000/- per month from the applicant. It was pleaded that their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu customs and rituals at Sakri and Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, on 06.07.2018. The parties lived together for some time, but thereafter, the applicant subjected the respondent No.2 (wife) to cruelty, compelling her to return to her parental home. Consequently, she filed the said application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The applicant submits that the respondent, without any justifiable reason, refused to live with him and, therefore, is not entitled to claim maintenance. It is further submitted that the applicant has no source of income. The applicant filed a reply before the learned Family Court in which it was stated that in the year 2022, the respondent left the matrimonial home without any valid reason. The contents of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were denied. The applicant, in his statement, reiterated that the respondent refused to live with him without sufficient cause and that he has no income to pay maintenance. Relevant 3 documents indicating the applicant's lack of income were also produced before the Family Court. However, the learned Family Court failed to consider the applicant’s contentions and evidence properly. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.07.2023, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition before this Hon’ble Court seeking to set aside the said order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, contrary to the evidence on record, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence while passing the impugned order. The applicant had sent a legal notice dated 10.12.2019 through his counsel to Respondent No. 1 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The applicant also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Family Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and documents produced by the applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to consider the statements of the applicant and his witnesses. This omission amounts to a legal error and violates the
Decision
principles of natural justice. The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and deserves to be set aside. The respondent, without any sufficient cause, refused to reside with the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant has no source of income. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to claim maintenance from the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 07.07.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Baloda Bazar, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara 4 (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.227/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent No.1/daughter and Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent No.2/wife, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant 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 impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, 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. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Chief Justice Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) 6. 7. 8. 9. Preeti