Anil Yadu S/o Kapil Yadu Aged About 38 Years Caste Yadu R/o Bhatapara Akaltara v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28161 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1059 of 2019 Anil Yadu S/o Kapil Yadu Aged About 38 Years Caste Yadu R/o Bhatapara Akaltara, Post OfÏce, Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Sunita Yadav W/o Anil Yadu Aged About 29 Years Caste Yadu, R/o B- 70, Power City Jailgao, Ayodhyapuri, Police Station Darri, District Korba Chhattisarh. 2. Minor Kumari Akansha Yadav D/o Anil Yadu Aged About 11 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Sunita Yadav R/o B- 70, Power City Jailgao, Ayodhyapuri, Police Station Darri, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3. Minor Ishant Yadav M S/o Anil Yadu Aged About 8 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Sunita Yadav R/o B- 70, Power City Jailgao, Ayodhyapuri, Police Station Darri, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek
Arguments
: Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents : None. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.27 10:39:48 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26.06.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to press the present revision petition when the matter is called for hearing. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “1. Set aside/quash the impugned order dated 09.08.2019 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 52/18, titled as Smt. Sunita Yadav & Ors. Vs. Anil Yadu. 2. and/or pass any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit as per the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief Facts of the case are that respondent No.1 and respondent Nos. 2 & 3, through their natural guardian, mother Smt. Sunita Yadav (respondent No.1), filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (Annexure A/2) against the applicant, contending that the applicant and respondent No.1 got married on 10.03.2004 at Akaltara Bhatapara in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were born. The marriage went smoothly for about three years. Thereafter, the 3 applicant, along with his parents, started harassing respondent No.1 by curtailing her food and daily necessities. Even during her pregnancy, she was given food only twice a day—once in the morning and once at night—and nothing in between. Her father-in- law and mother-in-law constantly monitored her. Due to the lack of proper nutrition, respondent No.1 became physically and mentally weak and fell ill. These conditions were reported by her to her parents and relatives, who repeatedly requested the applicant and his family to take proper care of her. However, no proper medical treatment was provided. When she asked for daily necessities and treatment, she was abused and told that if she needed treatment, she should either ask for money from her father or go to her parental home and get treated there. Hoping that things would eventually improve, respondent No.1 continued to endure the harassment, but the situation never changed. 5. In May 2014, respondent No.1’s health severely deteriorated. Her father-in-law contacted her father and stated that they were unable to take care of her and would be bringing her to her parental home. While leaving her there, he also suggested that she be examined by a psychiatrist. Her father objected to this, stating that his daughter had no mental illness and there was no reason for such examination. This disagreement caused further resentment, and her father-in-law became angry with both respondent No.1 and her father. In 2015, during the death ceremony of her grandmother, the applicant and his father visited respondent No.1’s parental home but did not ask her to return with them to her matrimonial home. On 4 29.06.2016, the applicant and his father again came to take respondent No.1 back home. She was ready to go, but they placed conditions that she would have to remain hungry and would not complain about anyone. They also said that if she fell ill, they would not believe her unless a neighbor confirmed it. When respondent No.1 objected to such inhumane conditions, they refused to take her with them. Since then, respondent No.1 has been residing at her parental home along with respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The applicant has ignored his responsibility to maintain them, including the educational and general well-being of respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The respondent No.1 is physically weak and unable to earn a livelihood through labor. Her parents are also economically weak and incapable of supporting all the respondents. 6. The applicant has sufÏcient means to earn. He earns Rs. 50,000/- per month from renting out a pickup vehicle, Rs. 30,000/- per month from a grocery shop, and Rs. 1,00,000/- annually from agriculture. Thus, he is financially capable of maintaining the respondents. On these grounds, the respondents prayed for Rs. 5,000/- per month for each of them as maintenance from the applicant. The application was opposed by the applicant through a reply (Annexure A/3), denying the adverse allegations. He stated that the respondents’ claims regarding his income are false and baseless. Contrary to their claims, respondent No.1 earns Rs. 10,000/- per month through tailoring and is capable of maintaining herself and her children. He further claimed that she is living separately without any just cause and that it was her father who took her for treatment and refused to 5 send her back. On several occasions, the applicant attempted to bring her back, but she declined. He also denied placing any conditions as alleged by the respondents. 7. The applicant asserted that respondent No.1 is financially capable of earning a livelihood. Her father is also financially well-off and can support her and the children. The sources of income alleged by respondent No.1 are false. The applicant is currently unemployed and unable to pay any amount, let alone Rs. 5,000/- per month. Respondent No.1 is residing separately without sufÏcient cause, and all personal and social efforts to bring her back were unsuccessful due to her refusal. Based on the above contentions, the learned Family Court framed three points for determination. After completion of the trial, vide impugned order dated 09.08.2019 (Annexure A/1), the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed, and the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance—Rs. 3,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- each to respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), is contrary to law, facts, and the circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court has erred in exceeding its jurisdiction and disregarding the proper procedure prescribed by law. A perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the Family Court based its findings on unfounded grounds, the veracity of which was not corroborated by any reliable evidence. He submits that the learned Family Court erred in appreciating the fact 6 that respondent No.1 deserted the applicant without any justifiable reason, and therefore does not deserve relief under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court failed to consider that respondent No.1 did not prove the applicant’s financial capacity, as alleged in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court also failed to appreciate that the applicant successfully established the earning capacity of respondent No.1 in his reply. Furthermore, the Court unnecessarily ignored the admission made by respondent No.1’s own witness, Dilharan (A.W.3), in this regard. He further submits that the learned Family Court erred in granting a maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month without making any finding regarding the applicant’s monthly income or earning capacity. The learned Family Court failed to consider that, before awarding any specific amount as maintenance, it must be inferred that the applicant’s income exceeds the maintenance amount, after accounting for the needs and expenses of the applicant and his dependents. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 is capable of earning a livelihood, even if it be through manual labor. He also submits that the learned Family Court did not consider that the specific expenses claimed by the respondents were not properly established on record. He further submits that the learned Family Court erred in concluding that the applicant’s financial condition allows him to bear the burden of ₹7,000/- per month, which is excessive and disproportionate to his means. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is, therefore, improper, incorrect, and contrary to settled judicial 7 precedents and established legal principles. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the order of the learned Family Court. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly higher side warranting