Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:48793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 752 of 2021 Deendayal Jhariya S/o Ganesh Jhariya Aged About 23 Years Occupation Service (Agriculture Department Kawardha), R/o Paithupara, Beside Sulabh Shauchalay, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh versus ... Applicant 1 - Pinky Jhariya W/o Deendayal Jhariya Aged About 20 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Nawagaon, Police Station And Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. Present Address Atal Awas Samnapur Road, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Tanishka Jhariya D/o Deendayal Jhariya, Aged About 11 Months, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Pinky Jhariya, R/o Village Nawagaon, Police Station And Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. Present Address Atal Awas Samnapur Road, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.09.2025 Order on Board 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and the impugned order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the learned presiding ofÏcer, Judge Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 06/2021 may kindly be set-aside in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), seeking maintenance from the applicant. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and was kept happily for only two months after marriage, after which the applicant and his family members subjected her to cruelty for dowry demands. It was further alleged that the applicant’s mother took all her ornaments and the applicant expressed his dislike for her, stating that if she wished to stay, it would be on his terms. Even during her pregnancy, she was allegedly harassed and ultimately compelled to leave the matrimonial home. She later delivered a female child (respondent No. 2) at her parental home, but the applicant and his family members did not visit or provide support. respondent No. 1, being illiterate and dependent on her father with an infant child, claimed that the applicant is employed in the Agricultural Department, owns 10 acres of agricultural land, and earns about Rs.30,000/- per month, and thus sought maintenance. 3 The applicant appeared before the Court, denied all allegations, and stated that respondent No. 1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home and repeatedly returned to her parental house despite his efforts to bring her back. He contended that on 18.12.2020, he, along with his family and relatives, went to her parental home to bring her back, but she refused to return and clearly stated she did not wish to live with him. The applicant further submitted that he is unemployed, works as a laborer, owns no land, and that the house at Kawardha is in his father’s name. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, finding that respondent No. 1 was residing separately without sufÏcient cause, rightly rejected her claim for maintenance but awarded Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No. 2, the minor child. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 06/2021 is bad in law, perverse, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. He submits that while the learned Trial Court rightly held that respondent No. 1 is residing separately without any sufÏcient cause and is not entitled to maintenance, it erred in granting maintenance to respondent No. 2, as she is living with respondent No. 1, who has chosen to stay in her parental home without valid reason. It is further submitted that the order of maintenance has been made effective from the date of application 4 despite there being no application for interim maintenance, causing undue financial hardship to the applicant. The applicant, being unemployed and dependent on labor work, is unable to pay the awarded amount and can only afford to pay up to Rs.1,000/- per month, which is sufÏcient as the child is already being looked after by her mother and grandfather. He further contends that the Trial Court failed to properly assess the applicant’s financial condition and passed the impugned order without proper appreciation of evidence, rendering it liable to be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings, evidence, and submissions of both parties, rightly held that respondent No. 1 failed to establish sufÏcient cause for residing separately from the applicant and, therefore, was not entitled to claim maintenance for herself under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court correctly observed that despite repeated efforts made by the applicant to bring her back to the matrimonial home, respondent No. 1 voluntarily chose to live with her parents without any justifiable reason. However, keeping in view the welfare and needs of the minor child, respondent No. 2, and recognizing the legal and moral obligation of the applicant to maintain his child, the learned Family Court rightly directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance for respondent No. 2. The order was passed after due appreciation of evidence and in accordance with law, balancing the rights and 5 obligations of both parties. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan