Chakeshwar S/o Pyarelal Aged About 30 Years Resident of Nayapara , Tilda Road, Near v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:48987 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 767 of 2021 Chakeshwar S/o Pyarelal Aged About 30 Years Resident of Nayapara , Tilda Road, Near Liquor Kiln, Police Station and Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. .. Applicant versus 1.
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice
Arguments
Smt. Neetu Dinhare W/o Chakeshwar Dinhare Aged About 25 Years Resident of Dohatra, Chowki Maaro, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2. Minor Kumari Mishti Dinhare D/o Chakeshwar Dinhare Aged About 6 Years Minors Through Natural Guardian Mother Neetu Dinhare Resident of Dohatra, Chowki Maaro, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 3. Minor Deepanjali Dinhare D/o Chakeshwar Dinhare Aged About 4 Years Minors Through Natural Guardian Mother Neetu Dinhare Resident of Dohatra, Chowki Maaro, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 4. Minor Tanuj Kumar Dinhare S/o Chakeshwar Dinhare Aged About 1 Years Minors Through Natural Guardian Mother Neetu Dinhare Resident of Dohatra, Chowki Maaro, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.24 17:58:27 +0530 ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Alok Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents : None 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.09.2025 1. 2. 3. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to press this revision petition when the case is called out for hearing today. Heard Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Alok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this revision, set aside the impugned order dated 27.8.2021 passed by the Family Court, Balodabazar in MJC No.374/19 and in effect dismiss the application filed by the respondents herein under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents, who are the wife and son of the applicant (husband), filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking a total monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- from the applicant. It was stated therein that after some time of marriage, the behaviour of her husband and in-laws changed, and they started harassing her mentally by saying that she was the daughter of a poor and landless person who had not brought anything in dowry. It is further alleged in the application that the applicant/husband is rowdy in nature, has extra-marital affairs with other women, and used to beat her. The respondent No. 1 tolerated the unruly behaviour of her husband with the hope that he would change in the future. However, on 09.05.2018, the applicant/husband quarreled with respondent No.1 on a domestic issue and, while doubting her character, assaulted her. In this 3 regard, respondent No.1 gave intimation to Police Station Simga on 09.05.2018, but no proper action was taken by the police. On 20.04.2018, respondent No.1 also filed a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar, and instituted a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Since the applicant husband ousted the applicants from the house, respondent No.1 and her minor children have been compelled to reside in her father’s house. The applicant has not made any arrangement for their maintenance. Respondents No.2 and 3 are studying in school. Hence, the respondents claimed a total of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance, i.e., Rs.5,000/- for respondent No.1 and Rs. 5,000/- for respondents No.2 to 4. 5. Upon filing of such application and service of notice, the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his reply denying all adverse averments made by the respondents in their application for grant of maintenance. The applicant categorically stated that the respondent No.1 wife and children are residing with him in a separate house, and it is he who has been making all arrangements for food, clothes, school fees, etc., for the respondents. Being a member of a joint family, he also has the responsibility of looking after his younger brothers and sisters. He further stated that he is not in possession of any agricultural land or vehicle and earns livelihood for himself and his family members by working as a labourer. The respondent No. 1/wife, out of her own will, separated from the company of the applicant with the sole intention of harassing him and his family members. On these grounds, the applicant prayed for dismissal of the application for grant of monthly maintenance. 6. Learned learned Family Court, after hearing the parties, partly allowed the application vide the impugned order and awarded a sum of 4 Rs.3,000/- each as maintenance to the applicants, i.e., a total of Rs.12,000/-. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Family Court with gross illegality. He submits that no order awarding maintenance can exceed the amount claimed in the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. While awarding the amount of maintenance, the Family Court failed to take into consideration the evidence on record, the status of the parties, their financial position, and the totality of the circumstances. He submits that learned Family Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the applicant has neither refused nor neglected to maintain the respondents. In fact, it is the applicant-husband who has been taking care of the respondent No. 1/wife and children. He further submits that it is the respondent-wife who refused to live with the applicant without sufÏcient reason, thereby disentitling herself from claiming maintenance as per the provisions of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. He also submits that respondent-wife failed to establish that she is residing separately from the applicant for sufÏcient cause and that she is unable to maintain herself. The respondent-wife failed to bring on record any material to show that the applicant has sufÏcient means to maintain her. He submits that in the absence of any documentary proof regarding the monthly income of the applicant, the Family Court ought not to have awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to each respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price 8. 9. 5 index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by