Durg, Chhattisgarh v. Nasrin Bano W
Case Details
1 SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.01.27 17:13:33 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 365 of 2016 Junaid Khan S/o Samad Khan, aged about 27 years R/o Takiyapara Ward No. 8, Police Station - Kotwali, Durg, District: Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus
Legal Reasoning
Nasrin Bano W/o Junaid Khan, aged about 25 years C/o Father Sheikh Sharif, Mathpara, Power House Road, Rajnandgaon, District: Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate on For Respondent : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 22.01.2025 1. The instant revision has been filed by the present applicant under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Family Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 265 of 2012, whereby the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2 for grant of maintenance has been allowed, granting maintenance @ Rs. 2,500/- per month in favour of the respondent herein. 2. Facts of the case are that, marriage between the applicant-husband and respondent-wife was solemnized on 08.06.2012, according to Muslim Customs and thereafter the respondent-wife went to her matrimonial house at Takiyapara, Durg for performing matrimonial obligations. After one month of their marriage, it was alleged that the applicant-husband, his aunt and uncle used to torture the respondent- wife on account of demand of dowry. Thereafter, the applicant- husband is alleged to leave his respondent-wife in her parental home at Rajnandgaon and applicant-husband did not take her back. Being fed-up with persistent ill-treatment, the respondent-wife lodged a complaint before Police Station: Durg on 16.12.2012. Thereafter, the wife-respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance which was allowed by the Family Court as mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this order. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant-husband submits that the respondent-wife has utterly failed to prove her case and no sufficient ground was shown on her behalf regarding torture meted out by her husband and relatives or any other reason which compelled her to leave her matrimonial house, and the learned Family Court without considering the evidence on record has erred in granting maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife. He further submits that wife has also stated that she is not willing to live with her husband, therefore, the sufficient ground was not proved by the respondent-wife and no documentary evidence was produced by her and without any sufficient 3 reason she was living separately, therefore, the wife is not entitled for any maintenance. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the order impugned and submits that after the marriage, the respondent-wife was tortured by the husband and other relatives and the torture meted out by the husband was complained by the wife in Police Station: Durg, and the applicant-husband has admitted about the complaint lodged by the wife against him and that the statement of wife was also supported by other evidence which clearly shows that the applicant himself has left her wife in her parental home. He further submits that sufficient ground has been shown by the respondent-wife to live separately from her husband, therefore, the order impugned granting maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife is just and reasonable, which does not call for any interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. AW-1 Nasrin Bano admitted the fact that the applicant-husband looking to the domestic dispute left her in a rented room at Shankar Nagar Durg, where she remained for three days without having food. She also admitted that the applicant-husband after locking the door of her room, went to his home and was living with his uncle & aunt. She has further stated that with the help of the neighbours, she called her maternal uncle Abdul Rashid, who came there and took her to parental home and on the advice of her relatives, she lodged a complaint at Mahila Thana Durg on 16.12.2012. She has further stated that she was subjected to torture both mentally and physically 4 by her husband and his relatives. In Para 4, she admitted that her husband’s aunt was taunting her with respect to bring insufficient dowry and for not giving motorcycle. In Para 12, she has deposed that after ten days of festival of Eid, the applicant-husband left her at her parental home and she has been living there for a period of three months. It is also specifically stated by her that applicant-husband himself told her to leave the matrimonial home. It is further admitted by her that when she was being brought by her family members, then on 16.12.2012 she lodged a report/complaint in Mahila Police Station: Durg (C.G.). It is also admitted by her that during counseling proceedings on 20.12.2012, she did not refuse to stay with her husband. 7. NAW-1, Junaid Khan, applicant-husband has admitted about the complaint lodged by respondent-wife against him and also with respect to counseling, however he did not produced any document of counseling. He further admitted that he did not lodge any complaint against her wife in any Masjid Committee. NAW-2 Jakir Ali, has also admitted that prior to social meeting at Parinala the respondent-wife has already lodged a complaint in the Women Cell, Durg. NAW-3 Istiyaq Khan, also admitted about the complaint being lodged by respondent-wife in Women Cell with respect to torture by her husband and her relatives and counseling also took place in this regard. 8. From perusal of above statements, it is clear that when the applicant- husband left the respondent alone in a rented room at Shankar Nagar, Durg, then she came to her maternal home and from then, the 5 applicant-husband did not try to take her away. This apart, from the evidence, it is also clear that applicant-husband and his relatives used to harass and quarrel with the respondent-wife and that the applicant- husband also threatened her and left her alone in a rented house, which compelled her to stay in her parental home. From the above evidence, it is also proved that the applicant-husband himself is not ready and willing to keep her with him and used to cause mental torture and harrasment to the respondent-wife by threatening her to leave the house and to interfere with the household work and compelled her to stay at her parent’s house for three months, which does not show that respondent-wife was staying at her maternal home on her own free will without any justifiable reason. Thus, considering the facts, evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court was justified in granting maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- in favour of the respondent-wife, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.
Decision
9. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Revision being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh