Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. Aman Sinha S
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:29555 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 379 of 2017 1 - Smt. Kusum Sinha W/oo Shri Aman Sinha, Aged About 30 Years R/o Through Shri Yado Ram Sinhafather, House No. 14, Moti Nagar, Boriyakhurd, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, , Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Dipika Sinha, D/o Shri Aman Sinha, Aged About 5 Years R/o Through Shri Yado Ram Sinha Father, House No. 14, Moti Nagar, Boriyakhurd, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
Aman Sinha S/o Shri Sadaram Sinha, Aged About 33 Years R/o Quarter No. 76/06. W.R.R.S. Colony, Police Station Khamtarai,raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicant. 2 2. By way of this revision petition, the applicants prayed for following reliefs:- “ It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and set aside the judgment dated 30.01.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Cr. M.J.C. No. 89/16, parties being Smt. Kusum Sinha and another vs. Aman Sinha, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant No.1 entered into marriage with non-applicant according to the Hindu Rights and Rituals in the year 2006 at Raipur, with hopes to lead best and prosperous marital life in future. But, it is very unfortunate that the non-applicant has tortured to the applicant No. 01 and she has thrown out of her matrimonial home in wearing clothes alongwith applicant No. 02. When all possibilities to settlement of the marriage have lost and respondent/non-applicant refused to maintain the applicants the appellants have compelled to file maintenance application before Family Court Raipur for their livelihood. It is further alleged that the non-applicant is working as Technician in the Railway (Central Government services) and is earning more than Rs.35,000/- per month and got all financial benefits time to time as per the service condition and policy. Due to continuous neglect and refusal to provide maintenance, the applicants are facing severe financial hardship, which gives rise to a valid cause of action to file this present application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the applicants moved the said application before the learned Family 3 Court and prayed for grant of maintenance Rs.12,000/- per month for their livelihood. 4. Thereafter, the matter was put up before the National Lok Adalat comprised at District Court, Raipur on 06.12.2014, the wherein the non-applicant has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 6000/- per month and they have mutually agreed to resolve their disputes. On the basis of their mutual consideration, the non-applicant agreed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.2. 5. The applicants have neither any source of income from any side nor they have any movable or immovable properties in their name. The applicant No.1 is housewife and the applicant No.2 is studying in the English medium school, therefore, the cost of living is higher than the amount paid to them per month i.e. 6,000/- rupees per month, appears to be much lower. Thus, the applicants had moved an application under section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur for enhancement of the amount from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, behind reasoning that the non- applicant is working in the Railways and he is getting more than Rs.35,000/- per month and the cost of living is also increasing day by day and the applicant No.2 is studying in the school and the school expenditure and tuition fees, transport and cost of books etc., and apart from this other necessary expenses are also increasing every year, as also the fact that they are living in rented house. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur registered the application as Cr.M.J.C. No.89/16 and on 30.01.2017 passed the impugned order 4 by partly allowing the prayer of enhancement however, has only enhanced the amount of Rs.1,000 (for both the applicants i.e. Rs.500/- each). Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur is perverse and not well merited and this is very low side of the case. Feeling aggrieved by the same the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 30/01/2017 is the Criminal Revision subject matter of the instant appeal without reasoning to disbelieve the actual needs of the appellants, the observation of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur is perverse, erroneous and contrary to the facts and documentary evidence available on records. He further submits that the Family Court has constantly ignored the material available in the record and has passed the order in a mechanical manner contrary to the material available on record. The Family Court has constantly ignored the material fact that the non-applicant is earning very handsome amount and got all the benefits provided by the Central Government to the Railways employees, but the learned court has ignored all these aspects of the matter and passed the impugned order. The Family Court should have examined that the applicants are dependent upon the non-applicant for their livelihood and applicant No.2 need more attention for her studies and other necessities, therefore, the Family Court should have considered the prayer of enhancement of the maintenance amount for the applicants. The order of the non-enhancement in maintenance allowance is not only arbitrary but it is also a punitive in nature 5 towards the applicants. The learned Principal Judge of Family Court Raipur ignored the version of rented house, which is genuine and passed erroneous order by not enhancing the maintenance allowance which is contrary to the facts.Therefore, he prays that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, 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 learned 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 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 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant No.1 along with her daughter before the learned Family Court, seeking enhancement in maintenance amount with the intent that the learned Family Court was awarded a very meager amount, which is neither reasonable nor in proportion to the rising cost of living and their genuine needs. After hearing both the parties, considering the overall circumstances of the case, the application filed by the applicants is partly allowed and the non-applicant is directed to pay the applicant No.1, Mrs. Kusum Sinha — ₹4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred) per month, inclusive of an enhancement of ₹500 (Rupees Five Hundred); and and to applicant No.2, Deepika Sinha — ₹2,500/- (Rupees Two 6 Thousand Five Hundred) per month, inclusive of an enhancement of ₹500 (Rupees Five Hundred), effective from the date of order, i.e., 30-01-2017 and further ordered that both the parties shall bear their own litigation expenses. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 10. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment. 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. 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal