Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. Pawan Kumar Deshlahare S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 988 of 2018 1 - Smt. Samvedana @ Sonam Deshlahare W/o Pawan Kumar Deshlahare Aged About 29 Years R/o Potgaon (Korar), District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh, Present R/o Village - Somni, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mrudul Deshlahare S/o Pawankumar Aged About 1 Years Through Natural Guardian, Mother Smt. Samvedana, R/o Somni, Post - Somni, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Pawan Kumar Deshlahare S/o Kunwar Singh Aged About 30 Years Occupation - Government Servant, Shikshakarmi, Grade-Iii, Primary School, R/o Potgaon, Post - Korar, P.S. - Korar, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.06.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Parth Shrivastava, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, learned counsel for the respondent. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision petition and the impugned order dated 02.05.18 passed by Principle Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon in Misc. Criminal Case No.62/16 be ordered to be set aside in respect of applicant no.1 and grant maintenance to the applicant no.1 as prayed in the application and further prayed that Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to enhance the maintenance amount granted to the applicant no.2, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant no.1 and the respondent were married on 03.05.2004 as per Hindu rites at Village Somni, District Rajnandgaon, and were blessed with a son (applicant no.2) on 12.06.2016. It is alleged that soon after marriage, the respondent subjected applicant no.1 to cruelty, demanded dowry, and did not provide proper care during her pregnancy. He used abusive language and pressured her for divorce, ultimately forcing her to live separately. The respondent is employed as a Shiksha Karmi Grade- III with a monthly income of ₹18,000/- and owns approximately 10 acres of agricultural land in Village Potgaon, generating an annual income of ₹3,00,000/-. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of ₹10 lakhs, claiming the wife was compelled to live separately for valid reasons and is unable to maintain herself and the child. The respondent denied the allegations, asserted his willingness to cohabit, and relied on a 3 decree in his favour under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court, after hearing both parties, granted ₹2,000/- per month as maintenance only to the son (applicant no.2), rejecting the wife’s claim on the ground that she was unwilling to reside with the respondent and no cruelty was proved. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred this revision petition citing illegality, impropriety, and incorrect findings by the learned Family Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, contrary to the facts and law, and therefore not sustainable. The Court failed to consider that petitioner no.1 has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself and her son, while the respondent has sufÏcient means but has neglected to provide maintenance. The Court overlooked that petitioner no.1 was compelled to live separately due to cruelty and dowry demands, which amounts to valid and sufÏcient cause under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is settled law that the right to maintenance is not dependent on who is at fault in the matrimonial dispute, and once it is established that the wife cannot maintain herself, she is entitled to maintenance. Moreover, the meagre amount of ₹2,000/- awarded to petitioner no.2 is grossly inadequate in view of rising living costs and educational expenses. The respondent’s claim of efforts to resume cohabitation was not substantiated with credible evidence. The Family Court failed to appreciate the gravity of cruelty inflicted on the petitioner, which itself is sufÏcient justification for her living
Decision
separately. Hence, the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary, and 4 deserves to be set aside or suitably modified. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that applicant No. 1 and non-applicant are legally wedded husband and wife, and that after the birth of their children, the learned Family Court rightly considered the facts and evidence presented by both parties and passed a well-reasoned and lawful order. It correctly held that petitioner no.1 was not entitled to maintenance as she failed to prove that she was subjected to cruelty or that there was a valid and sufÏcient reason for living separately. The Court took note of the respondent’s willingness to resume cohabitation and the decree passed in his favour under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner’s refusal to return despite such efforts indicated her lack of intention to continue the matrimonial relationship. Furthermore, the Court, while ensuring the welfare of the minor child, rightly awarded ₹2,000/- per month as maintenance to petitioner no.2, balancing the needs of the child with the financial capacity of the respondent. 5 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record of this case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan