Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:41282 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 988 of 2024 1 - Smt. Mantra Banjare W/o Shri Sunil Banjare Aged About 34 Years Caste - Satnami, R/o Village - Goindra, Tahsil - Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.), At Present R/o Village Baghmar, Police Station Fasterpur, Tahsil - Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Megha Banjare D/o Shri Sunil Banjare Aged About 15 Years Minor, Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Mantra Banjare W/o Shri Sunil Banjare, Caste - Satnami, R/o Village - Goindra, Tahsil - Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.), At Present R/o Village Baghmar, Police Station Fasterpur, Tahsil - Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
3 - Varsha Banjare D/o Shri Shunil Banjare Aged About 13 Years Minor, Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Mantra Banjare W/o Shri Sunil Banjare, Caste - Satnami, R/o Village - Goindra, Tahsil - Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.), At Present R/o Village Baghmar, Police Station Fasterpur, Tahsil - Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) versus ... Applicants Sunil Banjare S/o Shri Makhan Lal Banjare Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Government Servant, Caste - Satnami, R/o Village - Goindra, Tahsil - Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.), At Present R/o Adim Jati Kalyan Vibhag, Old Composite Building, In Front Of Collector OfÏce Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Parasmani Shriwas, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.08.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Parasmani Shriwas, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. J.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Criminal Revision and quashed/Set- Aside/Modify the order dated 10/07/2024 passed by family Court Mungeli, District-Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 442/2023 and order may be passed in favor of the applicant's to grant apropriate maintenance amount, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Mungeli, stating that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, their marriage having been solemnized about 17 years ago as per Hindu rites, and that applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are their minor daughters. It was alleged that, after a few years of cordial marital life, the respondent and his family members subjected applicant No.1 to cruelty, ultimately driving her out of the matrimonial home, compelling her to reside separately with the children. She further averred that she has no independent source of income, whereas the 3 respondent is a government servant earning approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month in addition to income from agricultural land, and sought maintenance accordingly. The respondent, while admitting the relationship, denied the allegations of cruelty and other averments. Upon recording evidence from both sides, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order, rejected the claim for maintenance of applicant No.1 without assigning proper reasons but partly allowed the application for applicant Nos. 2 and 3, directing payment of Rs. 4,000/- per month to applicant No.2 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No.3. Hence the applicants have preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Mungeli, is bad in law, perverse, and contrary to the settled principles under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as the court below failed to properly appreciate the facts, evidence, and circumstances of the case. The applicants have clearly established that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor daughters of the respondent, which the respondent has also admitted. The evidence shows that after a few years of peaceful marital life, the respondent and his family subjected applicant No.1 to cruelty, forcing her to live separately along with the minor children. It is further established that the respondent, a government servant with substantial income, has neglected to maintain them and is even living with another woman as husband and wife, giving sufÏcient reason for the applicants to reside separately. Despite this, 4 the learned Family Court wrongly rejected the claim of applicant No.1 and granted only a meagre maintenance to applicant Nos. 2 and 3, without considering the respondent’s financial capacity, the applicants’ needs, and the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The order is therefore liable to be set aside/modified, applicant No.1 is entitled to maintenance, and the maintenance awarded to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 deserves to be enhanced. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District- Mungeli, (C.G.). 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 applicants moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Mungeli, wherein applicant No.1 claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 their minor daughters. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Family Court found that while the relationship between the parties was admitted, applicant No.1 failed to establish sufÏcient and justifiable grounds for living separately so as to claim maintenance from the respondent. The Court observed that mere allegations of cruelty, unsupported by cogent and reliable evidence, could not warrant grant of maintenance to the wife, particularly when the respondent had expressed willingness to cohabit. 5 However, keeping in view the legal obligation of a father to maintain his minor children, the learned family Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to applicant No.2 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No.3, which, in the facts and circumstances, was held to be just, reasonable, and in accordance with law. 8. Considering the submission 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice