Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32060 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 335 of 2025 Manoj Parakh S/o Late Shri Meghraj Parakh Aged About 56 Years (Meghram Parakh Wrongly Mentioned In Cause Title), R/o 2g, In Front Of Vargish House, Housing Board Colony, Teterkuti, Police Station Bodhghat, Tahsil- Jagdalpur, Distt.- Bastar (C.G.). At Present R/o Crist Collage Road, In Front Of Binaka Moll, Gayatri Nagar, Jagdalpur, Distt.- Baster (C.G.) --- Applicant versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Sunita Parakh W/o Shri Manoj Parakh Aged About 38 Years R/o Mother Teresa Ward, Police Station- Bodhghat, Tahsil Jagdalpur, Distt- Bastar (C.G.). At Present C/o Shanti Ghote Block No. 07, First Floor, Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Housing Board Colony, Near Ganesh Temple, Mother Teresa Ward, Shanti Nagar, Police Station Bodhghat, Tahsil- Jagdalpur, Distt.- Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Tanya Parakh D/o Shri Manoj Parakh Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Sunita Parakh W/o Shri Manoj Parakh. R/o Mother Teresa Ward, Police Station- Bodhghat, Tahsil Jagdalpur, Distt- Bastar (C.G.). At Present C/o Shanti Ghote Block No. 07, First Floor, Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Housing Board Colony, Near Ganesh Temple, Mother Teresa Ward, Shanti Nagar, Police Station Bodhghat, Tahsil- Jagdalpur, Distt.- Bastar (C.G.) --- Non-applicants RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Along with CRR No. 823 of 2025 1 - Sunita Parakh W/o Manoj Parakh Aged About 40 Years R/o Mother Teresa Ward, Police Station Bodhghat, Tehsil- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tanya Parakh D/o Manoj Parakh Aged About 11 Years (Through Her Mother Sunita Parakh W/o- Manoj Parakh) R/o Mother Teresa Ward, Police Station Bodhghat, Tehsil- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh. ---Applicants Versus 1 - Manoj Parakh S/o Meghram Parakh Aged About 55 Years R/o 2-G, Before Vergis House, Housing Board Colony, Tetarkuti, Police Station- Police Station Bodhghat, Tehsil- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant In CRR No. 335/2025 For Applicant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For Applicant : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate In CRR No. 823/2025 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10 / 07 /20 25 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been filed against the same order, they are being decided of by this common order. 2. In the present case, an application for maintenance was filed on behalf of the wife, Smt. Sunita Parakh and daughter Tanya Parakh. 3 The learned Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, vide order dated 05.11.2024, granted a monthly maintenance amount of total ₹17,500/- to the wife, Smt. Sunita Parakhand daughter Tanya Parakh. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Sunita Parakh and daughter Tanya Parakh, filed Criminal Revision No. 823/2025, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Manoj Parakh, filed Criminal Revision No. 335/2025, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 3. Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for husband Manoj Parakh, would submit that the learned Trial Court has erred in not appreciating the facts and evidence in their proper perspective. It is an admitted fact that the wife voluntarily left her matrimonial home without any reasonable cause or prior intimation, and no complaint was made for several years after the marriage dated 06.11.2011, during which a child, Tanya, was born out of the wedlock. Only in 2022, after a long delay, she approached the Sakhi Centre and clearly stated during counselling that she did not wish to return to her matrimonial home, making her ineligible for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as she has refused to cohabit without sufÏcient justification. Moreover, her complaints against the applicant were found baseless, with police action limited to a Section 155 Cr.P.C. inquiry, and were later withdrawn 4 by her own afÏdavit stating her intent to live separately. The husband has consistently expressed willingness to maintain and live with his wife and daughter, and has continued to provide financial support, including school fees for the child. Despite this, the learned Court below passed the impugned order without properly evaluating the admissibility and legal bar under Section 125 Cr.P.C., or the fact that the wife is residing separately by choice. The impugned order is therefore based on assumptions, overlooking material evidence and applicable legal provisions. Therefore, the maintenance amount deserves to be set- aside/reduced suitably. 4. Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel appearing for wife and daughter, would submit that the learned Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, has gravely erred in awarding a meagre and inadequate maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month to wife and ₹7,500/- per month to minor daughter, which is grossly insufÏcient to meet even their basic needs considering present-day living expenses, inflation, and the child’s educational costs. The Court failed to properly consider that wife is a homemaker with no independent income and has been living separately along with her minor daughter due to sustained cruelty and harassment by the husband. It is undisputed that the husband is a government servant posted as an Assistant Teacher with a monthly salary of approximately ₹69,740/-, yet the maintenance awarded does not reflect his financial capacity. Despite a specific prayer for ₹40,000/- per month, the learned Court neither addressed the justification nor 5 applied the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (Criminal Appeal No. 730/2020) concerning standard of living, income, and reasonable needs. The Court also erroneously relied on the Respondent’s baseless plea of desertion while ignoring evidence of cruelty and abandonment. The impugned order dated 05.11.2024, being arbitrary and unjust, warrants interference for enhancement in the interest of justice and to ensure a life of dignity and security for the wife and daughter. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parites and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the wife before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance and after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 05.11.2024, whereby it was directed the husband to pay Rs. 17,500/- per month towards maintenance to wife and daughter. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Sunita Parakh and daughter Tanya Parakh, filed Criminal Revision No. 823/2025, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Manoj Parakh, filed Criminal Revision No. 335/2025, asserting that the amount awarded is 6 excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revisions and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs. 17,500/- per month to the wife. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to and are accordingly dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Rahul Dewangan