Dashrath Singh S/o Shri Banke Singh, Aged About 40 Years Caste Gond R/o Village v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:25121 NAFR GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.06.23 14:42:56 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 637 of 2017 Dashrath Singh S/o Shri Banke Singh, Aged About 40 Years Caste Gond R/o Village Bhundakona, Post Pondaki, Johila Bandh, Police Station And Tahsil Rajendra Gram, District Anuppur Madhya Pradesh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Shanti Singh, W/o Shri Dashrath Singh, Aged About 30 Years, 2 - Ashish Singh, S/o Shri Dashrath Singh, Aged About 7 Years, (Applicant / Respondent No.2 Being Minor On Behalf Of Through His
Legal Reasoning
Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Shanti Singh Applicant No.1 / Respondent No.1) Both Caste Gond And R/o Village Ekta Nagar, Khongapani, Post Office And Police Station Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Shri Shubham Rao, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondents : Smt. Anju Ahuja, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. Heard Shri Shubham Rao, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Smt. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District - Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 27/2014 whereby, the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that marriage of the applicant and respondent No. 1 was performed in the year 2005 at Khongapani, District - Koriya as per Hindu rights and rituals, thereafter, they were living together and enjoying the married life, thereafter, due to this wed lock the respondent No. 2 was born i.e. Ashish Singh aged about 07 years. 4. The respondent No. 1 filed an application for maintenance before the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) which has been decided on 12/04/2017 whereby maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- awarded to the respondents (Rs. 2,000/- for respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- for respondent No. 2) against the applicant and the respondent No. 1 and her son is living separately from the house of applicant without any sufficient and 3 reasonable cause whereas the applicant is ready to keep the respondent and her child, even then the maintenance amount has been awarded to respondents by the Family Court. 5. The respondents had filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. along with interim application for granting the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- for maintaining herself and child against the present applicant. The application of the respondents were registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 27/2014 and by order dated 12/04/2017, the application of the maintenance amount of the respondents were allowed against the applicant and the learned family court has awarded the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- for respondents against the applicant. The respondents contended in their application that the applicant and his family members have misbehaved with the respondent No. 1 and suddenly the nature & behavior of the applicant and his family members have been changed. Further, the respondent No. 1 contended in her application that the applicant and his family members harassed/ill- treated the respondent No. 1 on account of dowry and other small dispute regarding the house hold work. Again the respondent No. 1 submitted in her application that the applicant and his family members abused the respondent No. 1 and taking the work of the house by forcefully. The respondent No.1 contended in her application that the applicant is having 20-25 acre Agriculture land by which 15-20 thousand has been earned by the applicant as well as there is no any responsibility and liability to the applicant 4 for any work of the house or parents, therefore, the respondents prayed that the application of the respondents be allowed for granting the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/-for maintaining herself and child against the present applicant. 6. The applicant has filed the reply of the application u/s 125 alongwith the interim application of Cr.P.C. of the respondents and submitted his reply and denied all the contention of the respondents except the marriage and stated that the applicant and his family members have not harassed/ill-treated the respondent No. 1 on account of domestic work as well as demand of dowry. Again, the applicant submitted that the family members of the respondent No. 1 has kept the driving license of the applicant when he was learning the driving in the house of respondent No. 1. Further the applicant denied all the allegation and contention which is raised by the respondent in her application alongwith interim application against the applicant and due to which the respondents are not entitle for any maintenance amount against him. 7. The applicant submitted that the counseling was going between the applicant and respondent No. 1 alongwith the family members but each and every time the respondent No. I did not want to go alongwith the applicant for living together. The applicant and respondent No. 1 and their family members have presented the counseling and all the times the respondent No. 1 did not want to go with the applicant. The applicant has done every and best 5 effort done by him for settlement between them but the respondent No. 1 was arrogant and quarrelsome lady due to which the counseling has not succeeded. The Present applicant is not having any Agriculture land and at present he is unemployed person, therefore, he is not position to give the maintenance to the respondents. After taking evidence and not considering all aspects of the present case, the learned Family Court allowed application for maintenance against the applicant and the learned family court has awarded the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- for respondents against the applicant. Hence this Revision. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is unemployed person at present and he is not capable to give the maintenance amount to the respondent. It is also submitted that the respondents are living separately without any sufficient and reasonable cause whereas the applicant is ready to keep the respondent and her child. He would submit that the learned Family Court failed to see that at present, the present applicant is facing gross financial problem and the learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance amount to the respondents of Rs. 3,000/- which is unjustified and unreasonable. He would submit that the learned Family Court failed to see that the old age parents of the applicant are also dependent upon the applicant and old age parents of the applicant are residing with the applicant and maintain the expense of the parents by the applicant. The amount 6 maintenance awarded to the respondents against the applicant which is unjustified and improper looking to the condition of the applicant. He would submit that the applicant has never neglected or refused to maintain respondent No. 1 and 2. The learned Family Court failed to consider the correct factual position of the case, while there are sufficient evidence, statements and documents on record to believe the facts that applicant is not capable to give the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondents because he wants to live with her in view of the counseling. He would submit that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the applicant in its right proper and legal perspective. Therefore, he would submit that the impugned order dated 12/04/2017 is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 11. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2000/- per 7 month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that the respondent is legally bound to maintain his wife and child. Considering the average expenses for a person, it can be reasonably estimated that Rs.3,000/- per month is required. However, since the applicant resides with her parents, she does not incur expenses for residence. Therefore, considering the above facts, learned family court granted Rs.2,000/- per month for the applicant no. 1 and Rs.1,000/- per month for applicant no. 2. 12. Considering the submissions 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. 13. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information and follow up action, if any. Sd/-Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri