Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:45846 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1004 of 2019 Parmeshwar @ Baiga Dhuri S/o Nirmal Dhuri Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Modhe, Police Station Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant 1 - Smt. Tilochani @ Anjali Dhuri W/o Parmeshwar Dhuri Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Khaparakhol, Thana - Bilha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Chandani D/o Parmeshwar Dhuri Aged About 1 Years Minor
Legal Reasoning
Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Tilochani (Non Applicant No. 1), R/o Village Khaparakhol, Thana - Bilha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. S. P. Sannat, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09.09.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. S. P. Sannat, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice equity and good conscience RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow call for record of learned Family Court for perusal examination and verification Hon'ble Court's revisional jurisdiction and may further be pleased to allow revision setting- aside the impugned order dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure A-1) as passed in favour of present respondents, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent No.1 (wife) filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, stating that her marriage with the applicant (husband) was solemnized on 17.06.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs, and out of the wedlock, a child (respondent No.2) was born. It was alleged by the wife that after the marriage, the husband and his family members started subjecting her to cruelty over insufÏcient dowry and eventually turned her out of the matrimonial home. She further claimed that the husband owns 10 acres of agricultural land, from which he earns approximately Rs. 20,000/- per annum, and therefore, she sought a maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. The husband, in his written statement, denied all allegations, contending that there was neither any demand for dowry nor any cruelty, and asserted that the wife herself left the matrimonial home without just cause. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Family Court, vide judgment dated 17.01.2017, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to Respondent No. 1 and 3 Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No. 2, totalling Rs. 2,500/- per month, against which the present revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 17.01.2017 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, invalid, and contrary to the settled principles of law and procedure. The said order suffers from material irregularity, illegality, and perversity and, therefore, is neither tenable nor sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances of the case and passed the order mechanically without considering the financial condition of the applicant. The husband earns only Rs.20,000/- per annum from agricultural activities, which is barely sufÏcient for the livelihood of himself and his aged parents. This fact is clearly evident from paragraph 3 of the judgment itself, wherein the wife has admitted that the applicant’s annual income is Rs.20,000/-. Despite this clear admission, the learned Family Court erroneously awarded maintenance, which is highly disproportionate and beyond the applicant’s financial capacity. Furthermore, it is submitted that the wife herself left the matrimonial home without any just or sufÏcient reason, as she and her parents desired that the applicant should reside with them as a ghar-jamai (live-in son-in-law). When the applicant declined to accept this unreasonable demand, the wife, of her own free will, left his house and started living separately. In view of these facts, the order granting maintenance in favor of the respondents is wholly unsustainable and deserves to be set aside 4 with the interference of this Court by calling for the records of the learned Family Court for perusal, examination, and verification under its revisional jurisdiction. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, (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 the learned Family Court, after carefully considering the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances of the case, has rightly and lawfully exercised its jurisdiction in allowing the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the applicant (husband) and respondent No.1 (wife) was solemnized on 17.06.2013, and from the said wedlock, a child (respondent No.2) was born. The wife categorically deposed and produced evidence to show that after the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the applicant and his family members on account of insufÏcient dowry, and was ultimately forced to leave the matrimonial home. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, rightly held that the wife had sufÏcient and justifiable reasons to live separately from the husband. Further, as per settled principles of law, a husband has both a legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife 5 and minor child, irrespective of his financial status. Even though the applicant pleaded that his annual income was limited, the Family Court, after a balanced assessment of the financial condition of both parties, awarded a reasonable and just maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No. 2, ensuring the sustenance of the wife and minor child. The order was passed after framing proper issues, recording evidence, and hearing both sides, thereby following due process of law. Hence, the impugned order (Annexure A-1) is fair, judicious, and in accordance with law. 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. 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