Ajay Kumar S/o Randhir Singh @ Chandrachur Singh Aged About 42 Years (Wrongly Mentioned v. 1. Soni Singh W/o Ajay Kumar Singh, D/o Chandrakumar Singh Aged About 40 Years
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:29572 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 788 of 2025 Ajay Kumar S/o Randhir Singh @ Chandrachur Singh Aged About 42 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Ajay Kumar Singh)r/o Bhaskar Colony (Purnea), Near Polytechnic College, District Purnea, Bihar ... Applicant versus 1. Soni Singh W/o Ajay Kumar Singh, D/o Chandrakumar Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Bhaskarnagar, Purnia, Bihar Present Address Sattipara Rani Shakti Mandir, Kawala Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2. Arya Singh D/o Ajay Kumar Singh Aged About 13 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Soni Singh, Present Address Sattipara Rani Shakti Mandir, Kawala Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.02 13:12:52 +0530 3. Jagriti Singh D/o Ajay Kumar Singh Aged About 10 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Soni Singh, Present Address Sattipara Rani Shakti Mandir, Kawala Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Shriya Jaiswal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order 2 dated 08.04.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur (C.G.), whereby the interim maintenance application under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed by the respondents has been partyl allowed and directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to his wife, Rs. 2,500-2,500/- per month to respondent No. 2 and 3 who are son and daughter of the applicant. Hence, this revision. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant is the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 and 3. The marriage of applicant with respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 09.07.2008. The respondents had preferred an application under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita against the present applicant before the Learned Family Court, Ambikapur seeking maintenance. An application for interim maintenance was also filed along with the main application. Respondent No.1 on the same day had also preferred an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the present applicant seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Learned Court issued notices on both the applications to the present applicant which were later served upon the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant appeared before the Learned Court on 08.04.2025.5. The Family Court on 08.04.2025 without referring the case for settlement or without even making any efforts for settling the matter between the parties in complete contravention of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act proceeded to pass an order granting interim maintenance amounting to Rs. 10.000/- in favour of the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits the Learned Court has committed grave illegality in arriving at a finding of the applicant having established a separate household solely on the basis of a 3 photograph presented by the respondent No. 1, without checking its authenticity or providing any opportunity to the applicant to cross-examine the same. The learned Family Court has committed grave illegality in finding regarding the relationship of the present applicant with another woman merely on the basis of a photograph presented by the respondent No. 1 is factually incorrect and perverse and against the settled procedure under the law. The learned Family Court committed grave illegality in not referring the matter for settlement/reconciliation as mandated in matrimonial matters, which is a gross procedural irregularity and is in contravention of Section9 of Family Courts Act coupled with the fact that respondent No. 1 had also preferred an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Family Court has committed grave illegality in granting excessive and arbitrary interim maintenance of @10,000/- to the respondents which has no rational nexus with the applicant's current financial condition. Further, the applicant is presently unemployed and financially dependent on his parents, and no inquiry or evidence was recorded to assess his actual income and liabilities. Hence, the impugned order dated 08.04.2025 is illegal and is liable to be set-aside. 4. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the judgment of the trial Court and records of the trial Court. From perusal of the evidence available on record and the impugned order, it transpires that in this case it is not disputed that the respondents are the wife and children of the applicant and it is not proved in the case that respondent No. 1 is earning any income, hence the moral and legal responsibility of maintaining his wife and children lies on the applicant. Further, the school fee payment slip of respondent No. 2 and 3 is attached in the case, according to which their school fee of Rs. 1,700/- is paid per 4 month. Considering the age of applicants No. 2 and 3, it can be assumed that apart from school fees, food, clothes etc., they may also have some personal expenses. During the arguments, the applicant presented a photograph in which the applicant is seen with another woman and two children. From the photograph itself, it appears at first sight that the applicant has established another household outside the marital relationship. In such a situation, keeping in view the lifestyle, social status, daily needs, age of children and financial status of both the parties, the application for interim maintenance submitted by the respondents is partially accepted and the applicant is ordered to pay interim maintenance amount of @5,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and @2,500-2,500/- per month to respondent No. 2 and 3 from the date of order. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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.
Decision
Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice 7. 8. Preeti