Kabirdham Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh v. Anil Mishra S
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 876 of 2015 2025:CGHC:19953 NAFR Sakshi Mishra W/o Anil Mishra Aged About 24 Years Occupation - House Wife, R/o Village - Kukusda, Police Station And Tahsil - Pathariya, Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh Civil District Bilaspur Chhattisgrh, Present Address - Irrigation Department Colony Bandhatola Bodla, Police Station - Bodla, Civil And Revenue District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Anil Mishra S/o Late Vishnu Prasad Mishra Aged About 30 Years Occupation - Government Servant, Working As Nayak In Indian Army, R/o Village - Kukusda, Police Station And Tahsil Pathariya, Revenue District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh Civil District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Present Address - No. 14430672 Lnk Anil Kumar Mishra, 221 Fd Regt. Pin 920221 C/o 56 Apod Company, Upwada Kashmir India The Address Given In The Order Sheet Is Changed , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01 /05/2025 1. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Family Court, Kabirdham, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.22/2013, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. Brief facts according to the applicant is that the applicant alleged that she was married to the respondent on April 29, 2007, at Village Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.), and moved to her matrimonial home at Village Kukusda. The applicant claimed that despite her father providing dowry and household articles, the respondent and his family were dissatisfied. She alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry demands shortly after the marriage. The applicant stated that she lived with the respondent on multiple occasions, but he consistently physically abused her under the influence of alcohol. The respondent’s family members condoned his behavior. She claimed that the respondent's misconduct continued even when he was posted at Pathankot, and she was forced to live with him for about two months. She also alleged that the respondent's relatives, including her brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Jeth and Jethani), subjected her to cruelty. 4. The applicant stated that she returned to her parental home in March 2009 and that the respondent continued to harass her even there. She claimed that when her mother-in-law passed away in 3 October 2010, the non-applicant threatened her not to attend the funeral. Despite this, the applicant did not file a police report, hoping to salvage her marriage. The applicant further stated that the respondent has a steady income from his agricultural land and his job as a Naik in the Indian Army, earning a salary of Rs. 30,000 per month, along with other benefits. She claimed that she has no independent income and is entitled to maintenance. The applicant prayed for a monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000 from the non-applicant. The respondent, after being served notice by the Family Court, appeared and filed a reply before the Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha), District Kabirdham (C.G.), denying the allegations made in the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant. 5. The respondent claimed that he had purchased a house with the help of the applicant's father at Kawardha, which was registered in the applicant's name. He further stated that the applicant possessed all the gold and silver ornaments. The non-applicant alleged that the applicant was a well-educated woman with a share in Shivam Public High School, Durg/Rajnandgaon, earning Rs. 9,000 per month. The respondent also mentioned his financial responsibilities, including supporting his unemployed elder brother's children. He claimed that his mother's death in 2010 had resulted in significant expenses, which he was still paying off. The respondent alleged that the applicant had refused to join him in his matrimonial home, and he had filed an application under 4 Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, on October 29, 2012. The respondent claimed that the applicant had expressed her willingness to divorce and that she was an independent woman who did not want to live with him. However, he stated that he loved his wife and was willing to take her back, agreeing to comply with any terms and conditions imposed by her. The respondent made serious allegations about the applicant's character, claiming she had a love affair before marriage that was still ongoing. Based on these grounds, the non- applicant prayed for the rejection of the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The Family Court attempted to facilitate restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Family Court Act, but the parties did not agree. The Court then framed four issues to adjudicate the matter, recorded the statements of both parties, perused the documents, and heard the arguments. The Court partly allowed the application and granted a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000 to the applicant, along with Rs. 500 as case expenses. The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Family Court. Hence, the criminal revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in granting maintenance from the date of order, whereas, the Code of Criminal Procedure provided the maintenance allowance from the of filing of applicant, therefore,
Decision
the impugned order is liable to be modified. He further submits 5 that the finding of determination of the fact on various reasons and settled down the alimony in wrong presumption and contents have been wrongly taken into consideration, which is perverse, bad in law and needs modification in the order by increasing the maintenance allowance up to Rs.15,000/- per month in favour of the applicant because respondent is getting salary about Rs.25,000/- per month and also having agricultural land, also the learned Family Court has erred in granting very low amount on the part of expenses for filing of the case. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has recorded the finding that the applicant herself had expressed on 24.07.2015 that interim maintenance should not be granted. There is no assertion by the applicant that she had taken loans to support herself. From the perusal of the order sheets, it appears prima facie that the respondent appeared in the case for the first time on 04.05.2015. The circumstances of the judgments 6 cited by the applicant are different from the circumstances of the present case. Therefore, there are no reasonable grounds to grant maintenance allowance from the date of application. Consequently, in the case of the respondent, whose sources of income are monthly salary and agricultural land, as evident from Ex. NA-7, and Ex. NA-1, which are documents related to bank loans taken by the respondent, the Court takes into account the respondent's dependents, loan repayment obligations, and the capacity to earn as indicated by the lifestyle and social status of both parties and has directed the respondent, Anil, to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month to the applicant/wife from the date of the order until further orders and the costs of the proceeding are determined at Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only), which will be borne by the respondent, Anil. 11. 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. 12. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal