Somnath Sahu S/o Bhauram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Bagbahra, Road Near v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:970 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 801 of 2015 Somnath Sahu S/o Bhauram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Bagbahra, Road Near Sanjay Kanan, Beside Daddu Auto Center, Mahasamund Police Station And Tahsil, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Barkha Sahu W/o Somnath Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Sardar Bhagat Singh Ward, Mahasamund Police Station And Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 - Isha Sahu D/o Somnath Sahu Aged About 6 Years Through Her Natural Guardian/mother Namely Smt. Barkha Sahu, W/o Somnath Sahu, Aged About 27 Years. R/o Sardar Bhagat Singh Ward, Mahasamund Police Station And Tahsil Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. For Applicant For Respondent : : ---- Respondent
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel the private applicant. Also heard Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 2 27.08.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 10/2015, whereby the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and 4,000/- per month to the respondent No.2/daughter. Hence, the applicant preferred this Criminal Revision. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent No.1 namely Smt. Barkha Sahu filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance. The applicant was filed inter-alia on the allegations that she got married with the applicant herein on 20.04.2008, out of the said wedlock the respondent No.2 was born out. After the marriage the applicant used to harass her and ill-treated her. It was also alleged that the applicant herein has illicit relationship with one Bhomika and the applicant wants to marry with her and because of which the applicant use to ill-treat her and her daughter and the applicant has locked the house and has thrown her along with her daughter on road, therefore, she has no other way to left her matrimonial house and under the compelling circumstances she is leaving at her matrimonial house due to the danger to her life. The applicant use to earn Rs. 20,000/- from job and is working on the post of Multipurpose health worker and use to earn 500/- daily by 3 private treatment. There is no source of income of the respondent and she is not in a position to maintain herself. The applicant herein filed his reply and denied all the allegations contained in the application. It was specifically denied that he used to ill-treat the applicant and therefore she has left the matrimonial house. The learned Family Court has framed five issues and after recording the evidence of the parties has passed the final order on 27.08.2015 and has allowed the application preferred by the wife and daughter. It was held by the learned Family Court that the wife/respondent No.1 is residing separately and she has left the matrimonial house for the sufÏcient reasons and she is not in a position to maintain herself. It was further held by the learned Family Court that the applicant herein is has sufÏcient means and has passed an order of maintenance and applicant herein has been directed to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 4000/- to respondent No.2/daughter. The order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. The learned trial Judge vide impugned order dated 27.08.2015 has allowed the said application and the applicant has been directed to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs. 9000/- to the respondents. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court that the respondent is residing separately for the sufÏcient reason are perverse on the state of evidence on record. The wife has failed to prove before the trial Court that she is not able to maintain herself. Near about 4 4 members of his family are dependent on the applicant and the order of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- is on the higher side. The wife is having the sufÏcient source of income and she is able to
Decision
maintain herself. Thus, the impugned order is liable to set-aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that the respondent/wife has been living separately from the applicant/husband for so many years as the applicant was beating her and treated her with mental and physical cruelty, thus, it is clear that cruelty is just and sufÏcient ground for the wife to live separately from his husband, further the fact that the applicant has stated that he is posted as Multipurpose health worker, his gross salary is Rs. 20,000/- per month and use to earn 500/- daily by private treatment,, and the respondent/wife has no any source of income and she is not able to maintain herself, on which ground the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund, has allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent/wife for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per month to the respondents, and there is not any illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order. 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 applicant is the husband of the respondent, and the allegation raised by the respondent against the applicant is that she has been 5 living separately from the applicant for so many years as the applicant was beating her and treated her with mental and physical cruelty. It is clear that cruelty is just and sufÏcient ground for the wife to live separately from his husband, further the fact that the applicant, Somnath Sahu, has stated that he is posted as Multipurpose health worker, his gross salary is Rs. 20,000/- per month and use to earn 500/- daily by private treatment, it is also clear that the respondent No.1 was not able to maintain herself, due to which in the present case the respondent has requested to provide her monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- from the applicant, and the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) has allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of CrPC by passing the impugned order, and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per month to the respondents from the date of passing of the impugned order. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.), it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the respondent/wife and monthly income of the applicant/husband, has allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of CrPC, and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per month to the respondents 6 vide impugned order order dated 27.08.2015, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being deviod of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar