Smt. Nandini Markandey & others v. Rajendra Markandey), in the interest of justice
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:40153 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 983 of 2023 Rajendra Markandey S/o. Vishnu Markandey, Aged About 33 Years R/o. Hathnipara, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward, Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara City, Tahsil Bhatapara, District - Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Nandini Markandey W/o. Rajendra Markandey, Aged About 30 Years Presently Residing At Village Chicha, Purana Basti, Naya Raipur, Tahsil Arang, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Ansh Markandey, S/o. Rajendra Markandey, Aged About 8 Years Presently Residing At Village Chicha, Purana Basti, Naya Raipur, Tahsil Arang, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (No. 2 And 3 Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Nandini Markandey) 3 - Minor Kunal, S/o. Rajdendra Markandey, Aged About 7 Years Presently Residing At Village Chicha, Purana Basti, Naya Raipur, Tahsil Arang, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (No. 2 And 3 Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Nandini Markandey) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Kunwar Lal Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Sundar Lal Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 11.08.2025 2 1. Heard Mr. Kunwar Lal Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sundar Lal Sahu, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and be pleased to make an order to set-aside the interim order dated 04.08.2023 (ANNEXURE A/1) passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Misc. Cr. Case No. 328/2021 (Smt. Nandini Markandey & others Vs. Rajendra Markandey), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and the non-applicant No.1 were married in April 2012, according to Hindu customs, in Village Chicha, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). From their marriage, two sons were born, Ansh Markandey (8 years) and Kunal Markandey (7 years). After the birth of her first son, the applicant’s behaviour became cruel. She was assaulted and harassed by her husband and in-laws, accused of being a witch (“tonhi”), and threatened to leave the house. After the second child’s birth, the husband allegedly drank alcohol, beat her, demanded money, and had an illicit relationship with another woman, Kiran Dewangan, with whom he allegedly married without divorcing the non-applicant No.1. She further alleged sexual abuse, restrictions on contacting her parents, and repeated demands to sever ties with her family. She claims that despite legal notices and police complaints, the cruelty continued. She alleges physical 3 assaults, deprivation of food, denial of medical treatment, and pressure to work for income despite being physically weak and poorly educated. It is further alleged that the applicant earns around ₹30,000/- per month from construction work, ₹10,000/- per month from house rent and income from farming and is financially capable of providing support. She seeks ₹15,000/- per month as maintenance for herself and ₹5,000/-month for the children’s education and maintenance. 4. The applicant taken his defence and denies all allegations, claiming the non-applicant No.1 was quarrelsome, abusive, and under her maternal family’s influence, repeatedly leaving for her parental home for long periods. He denies cruelty or illicit relationships, stating he loves and cares for his family. He claims, the non- applicant did not fulfil her marital duties, refused to return despite his repeated requests, and even failed to attend his father’s funeral. He alleges she prefers to live independently, earns through sewing and embroidery, and is capable of self-support. He states he has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which is pending. He argues that the children are currently living with him, so her maintenance claim for them is baseless. He requests dismissal of the application as false and unfounded. 5. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, hearing the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC in favour of wife, and directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 7000/- per month as 4 maintenance however, rejected the application of the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that they are living with the applicant and all their expenses are bearing by the applicant and further directed the applicant to bear Rs. 2000/- for expenses of the proceedings. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the amount awarded by learned Family Court is excessive exorbitant and beyond the sources of income of the present applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is required to pay a monthly Rs. 7000/- and the order of maintenance is excessive. The non-applicant No.1 is living separately without any just and reasonable cause and therefore she is not entitled to any maintenance. He further submits that the learned Family Court have failed to appreciate that the applicant is still willing to take the his wife back into the matrimonial home. The learned Family Court committed error by allowing the application for maintenance and whereas there is no any source of income to the applicant for his livelihood. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application 5 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- for herself and minors. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application only in favour of wife, and directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 7000/- per month as maintenance however, rejected the application of the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that they are living with the applicant and all their expenses are bearing by the applicant and further directed the applicant to bear Rs. 2000/- for expenses of the proceedings. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court concerned, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 6 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. OfÏce is directed to send a certificate copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action. Chief Justice Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Kunal