Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:41457 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1002 of 2019 Kusum Bharti S/o Baliram Bharti Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Sahu Pan Thela, Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN versus ... Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Budhbai W/o Kusum Lal Bharti Aged About 32 Years R/o Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh At Present Adress Godi, Police Station Balco Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Anshu Bharti D/o Kusum Bharti Aged About 3 Years Through The Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Budhbai, Aged About 32 Years, W/o Kusum Lal Bharti, R/o Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh At Present Adress Godi, Police Station Balco Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 19.06.2019 passed by learned Family Court, Korba, District – Korba 2 (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.49/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and respondent No.2 is their daughter. Both respondents reside together at Village Godhi. The marriage of respondents No.1 with the applicant was solemnized about four years ago, after which she started residing with him at Village Urga. Out of the said wedlock, respondent No.2 was born on 19.08.2014. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties and the applicant started threatening respondent No.1, due to which she went to her maternal home at Village Godhi and continued to reside with her sister Bundbai. Respondent No.1 also lodged a police complaint at Police Station Balco on 29.11.2015, but no action was taken. Thereafter, the applicant demanded divorce from respondent No.1, which she refused. On 23.05.2015, the applicant allegedly assaulted respondent No.1 and poured hot water on her with an intention to kill her. In this regard, respondent No.1 lodged a criminal complaint at Police Station Urga and an FIR under Section 324 of the IPC was registered, in which trial is still pending. Respondent No.1, having no independent source of income, has been residing with her sister and is facing great hardship in maintaining herself and her minor daughter. It was further alleged that the applicant is a motor 3 mechanic and vendor, earning about Rs.40,000/- to 50,000/- per month, and therefore, applicants prayed for grant of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the entire case of the respondents. He specifically denied that respondent No.1 is his legally wedded wife or that respondent No.2 is his daughter. He further denied the alleged marriage, physical relationship, and the birth of respondent No.2 out of the alleged wedlock. The allegations of threats, assault and the incident of burning were also denied. The applicant pleaded that as there was never any marriage between him and respondent No.1, there could be no question of divorce. He further contended that the criminal complaint lodged by respondent No.1 at Police Station Urga was false and that he has already been acquitted in the said criminal case. He also stated that the respondents are presently residing with the sister of respondent No.1 at Village Ganiyari. The applicant claimed that he is unemployed and has no source of income. It was further submitted that respondent No.1 is already receiving interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month from him as well as divorcee pension under a Government scheme, and hence the application deserved to be rejected. 3. Thus, the Family Court, after perusal of the pleadings, framed as many as four questions for determination, recorded the evidence of both parties, and upon appreciation thereof, passed the impugned order in favour of the applicants and granted monthly maintenance to respondents as aforementioned. Hence the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order 4 dated 19.06.2019 is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Court has wrongly held respondent No.1 to be the wife of the applicant despite there being no evidence of marriage or proof of their residing together. Respondent No.1 has also failed to establish that respondent No.2 was born out of the alleged wedlock, whereas material on record shows that respondent No.1 was earlier married to one Tota Ram, against whom she had already filed proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court further failed to consider that respondent No.1 was working as an Anganbadi worker, is capable of maintaining herself, and is also receiving divorcee pension under a government scheme. The finding regarding the alleged income of the applicant is equally erroneous, as the Court ignored that respondent No.1 is already receiving maintenance in separate proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance observing the evidence and testimonies, wherein, it is proved that respondent No.01 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and respondent No.02 is their daughter. It is 5 also established that the respondents are living separately from the applicant due to sufficient and justified reasons, as the applicant subjected respondent No.01 to cruelty and neglect. Furthermore, it is evident that the respondents have no independent source of income and are unable to maintain themselves. Thereafter, the Family Court after considering the social and economic status of both the parties come to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. Considering the submissions 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil