Nafr High Court
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:29672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 334 of 2017 Harprit Singh S/o Shri Trilochan Singh Raina, Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 21, Manendragarh Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Anju Kaur W/o Shri Harprit Singh Raina, Aged About 22 Years R/o Prem Nagar Colony, Rajnagar, Police Station Bijuri, Tahsil Kotma, District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh., Madhya Pradesh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants For Non-applicant : : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. 2. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the Non-applicant. By way of this revision petition, the applicant prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Criminal Revision and set aside the impugned order dated 13.02.2017 passed in Miscellaneous criminal case No. 80/2015 in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant moved an application 2 under section 125 of Code of criminal procedure inter alia pleading that her marriage was solemnized with the applicant herein on 10/03/2013 at Manendragarh and the non-applicant and applicant are husband and wife. After the marriage, both the parties resided together and thereafter, the applicant and his family members used to torture the non-applicant for demand of dowry and other mental harassment was also done by them. On 19/06/2013 she was threatened to assault for which she made a phone call to her family members and lodged report to the police station Manendragarh to that effect. After that a social meeting was held in which the applicant agreed to live as Ghar Jamai and started living in the parental house of the non-applicant. But again on 05/05/2014, the dispute arose between the parties which resulted in lodging of a criminal case at police station Rajnagar under section 498(A)/34 of IPC. The non- applicant wife further pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself as she do not have any source of income on the other hand the applicant husband he is having one lantered house, one hotel, one Mobile repair shop and some agricultural land and earns Rs 50,000/- approximately per month. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court. 4. After service of the notice, the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the application and pleading in it that soon after marriage the non-applicant pressurized him to live with her in her parental house as Ghar Jamai or in consequence of disagreement they will face false criminal case. On 19/06/2013 a report under Section 498(A)/34 of IPC 3 was lodged in police station Rajnagar which was compromised on 26/07/2013 and the applicant family members were acquitted. In terms of the agreement, the applicant started residing as Ghar Jamai but due to ill-treatment done by non applicant/wife, the applicant left her house on 07/05/2014 after giving a written compliant to police station Rajnagar. Soon thereafter second criminal case under section 498(A)/34 of IPC and section 3, 4 of Dowry Provision Act was registered against the applicant. In this manner the non-applicant wife was living separately without sufÏcient cause. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that a case for divorce was also filed between the parties which has been decided vide order dated 13/02/2017 and divorce has been granted in favour of the applicant on the ground of cruelty done by the non-applicant/wife. Therefore also the non-applicant/wife is living separately without sufÏcient cause and it is established that the cruelty was done wife herself. 6. On the basis of pleading of the respective parties and after recording the evidence, the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicant/wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance of Rs. 2500/- per month from February 2017 in favour of non-applicant/wife. Hence, this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record and passed the order of maintenance of Rs. 2500/- in favour of the non-applicant/wife which is exorbitant looking to the status of the applicant as he has no sufÏcient means of earning. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that a decree of divorce in favour of the 4 applicant has been passed by the same court on the same day and it has been held that the applicant was subjected to cruelty by the non applicant/wife therefore also it is evident that the reason for living separately is cruelty by the wife non applicant. The non applicant/wife do not want to reside in the house of the applicant and wanted to keep the applicant as Ghar Jamai to which the applicant agreed but then also could not face the cruelty and harassment done by the non- applicant wife and therefore left her in the parental house and escaped from their any way. Since the non applicant/wife is living separately without sufÏcient cause and the divorce has been granted on the ground of cruelty by the non applicant/wife herself, she is not entitled for any maintenance from the applicant. The order passed by the learned Family Court is excessive and liable to be reduced looking to the peculiar facts of the present case. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicant before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/-per month from the applicant. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court passed the order on 13.02.2017, whereby it was observed that she has not provided any specific details or justification in her statement regarding why she requires such an amount. The non-applicant is currently residing at her parental home, meaning she does not have to incur any additional expenses for accommodation. It can be reasonably considered that an average person’s basic monthly 5 needs can be met with approximately ₹3,000/-. Since the applicant does not have to spend on rent or housing, taking into account the above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2500/-per month towards maintenance amount to the non-applicant/wife. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expenses granted Rs.2500/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Kunal Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice