Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:3647 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 837 of 2024 1 - Aradhana Nishad W/o Khomkaran Aged About 38 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Devrideeh, Housing Board Colony, Devrideeh, Police Station Torwa, District- Bilaspur ( C.G.), 2 - Akriti Nishad D/o Khomkaran Nishad Aged About 8 Years Minor Through- Their Natural Guardian Mother Aradhana Nishad ( Applicant No.1) R/o Village Devrideeh, Housing Board Colony, Devrideeh, Police Station Torwa, District- Bilaspur ( C.G.), 3 - Aditi Nishad D/o Khomkaran Nishad Aged About 6 Years Minor Through- Their Natural Guardian Mother Aradhana Nishad ( Applicant No.1) R/o R/o Village Devrideeh, Housing Board Colony, Devrideeh, Police Station Torwa, District- Bilaspur ( C.G.), --- Applicant(s) versus Khomkaran Nishad S/o Dev Singh Aged About 40 Years Occupation Teacher, Resident Of Village Bhatbhera, Chandani Chowk, Bhabhera, Tahsil Simga,district- Balodabazar- Bhatapara ( C.G.). ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Rupendra Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28.07.2025
Decision
Order on Board 2 1. Heard Mr. C.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rupendra Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Non- applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 07-03-2024 (Annexure A-1 relating to the applicant No.1) and may kindly be pleased to award appropriate maintenance to the applicant No.1 and enhance the maintenance amount of the applicant No.2 & 3 as prayed in the application under Section 125 of CRPC, in the interest of justice..” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09-02-2010, the applicant No.1 and non-applicant performed marriage according to the Hindu Customs and Rituals and out of their wedlock the applicant Nos.2 & 3 were born, who was aged about 08 years and 06 years at the time of filing application of maintenance. After some time of marriage, the husband pressurized the wife to left the job and when the wife left the job, the husband pressurized the wife to do the job. The husband and his parents have tortured the wife, therefore the applicants left the house of husband and are living at her parental home. Due to refusal to provide maintenance, the applicant No.1 is facing financial hardship, which gives rise to a valid cause of action to file this present application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The wife also pleaded in her application that the husband is government teacher posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II and getting salary of 3 Rs.40,000/- per month. It was also pleaded in her application that the husband is having 6-7 acres of land and earning 1.50,000/- in that lands and the husband is having two big house and given on rent and earning Rs.20,000/- per month in that house, thus she prayed before the learned Family Court to grant monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of applicants. 4. The husband filed his reply and denied all the adverse allegation made against him and mentioned that after the marriage, they were living at her parental home separately and when the parents had come to take the applicant No.1 along with them, they had gone in a very good mood and thereafter the husband had gone to take her back, the wife and her parents had denied and threatened. The husband also stated that the applicant No.1 is educated lady working in the insurance company and earns Rs.30,000/-, therefore she does not require to get any maintenance pleaded by her and also stated that the husband also prepared to keep the wife, but the wife is not ready. 5. The learned Family Court after considering the evidence on record, passed the impugned order dated 07-03-2024 whereby, partly allowed the application and granted the maintenance to the children/ applicant Nos 2 and 3 as Rs.3000/- per month each and rejected the claim of wife and further ordered to bear Rs. 1000/- for expenses of the proceedings. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the order dated 07- 03-2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, without application of mind and is against the object of 4 Section 125 of CRPC. It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the proceedings under section 125 of CRPC is summary in nature further the learned Family Court has not considered the documents regarding the income of the non- applicant, the gross salary of the husband was Rs. 40,000/- per month and due to the agricultural work, the husband earns Rs.1,50,000/- and also getting income from rent of house. The learned Family Court also not considered that the applicant No.1 is not having any source of income, the learned Family Court rejected not only the application of the wife and has surprisingly very meager amount have been granted to the children i.e. applicant Nos.2 and 3, who are school going children. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Family Court concerned, it transpires that an amount of ₹3,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (the daughters). At the same time, the application of applicant No. 1 (the wife) was rejected on the ground that she is 5 living separately from the non-applicant without any just and sufÏcient reason. In such circumstances, applicant No. 1 is not entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant. It appears that the learned Family Court, upon proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting maintenance solely to the minor child, considering their dependent status and the legal obligation of the father to maintain them. The absence of any finding or relief in favor of applicant No. 1 indicates that the Court did not find sufÏcient grounds to allow her claim for maintenance, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be either erroneous or unjustified. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Kunal