Nafr High Court
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:19952 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 769 of 2017 Anil Mishra S/o Late Vishnu Prasad Mishra Aged About 30 Years Ex- Serviceman, R/o Village Kukusada, Pathariya, District Mungeli, Presently At 103, Abhishek Vihar- I I, Post Mangla, Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
Sakshi Mishra W/o Shri Anil Mishra, Aged About 27 Years Occupation- Nothing, R/o Kukusada, Police Station Pathariy, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli, Presently At Irrigation Colony, Bandhatola Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants For Non-applicant : : Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate. Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 29.07.2016, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, 2 Kabirdham (Kawardha), District- Kabirdham (C.G.) in MJC No. 237/16 (Anil Mishra Vs. Sakshi Mishra), whereby, the application filed by the applicant under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed and the applicant was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5000/-per month to the respondent/wife. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent’s father had given the applicant sufÏcient dowry and household goods according to his status, but the applicant and his family were not satisfied. Within a week of marriage, the applicant started harassing the respondent by beating her. For the first time, the respondent stayed at her in- laws' place for two months. During the said two months, the applicant used to drink alcohol every day and beat the respondent/wife like an animal. All the members of the house gave their silent consent. For the second time, the respondent went to her in-laws' place in August 2007, at that time also, the applicant beat the respondent after drinking alcohol every day for a year. In May 2008, the applicant was posted in Pathankot, where he took the respondent and beat her after drinking alcohol every day, where the respondent stayed with the applicant for two months. During the said period, the applicant used to pressurize the respondent to talk to any of his friends. He used to beat her if she did not talk. The respondent came back to her in-laws' house in Kukusda after two months out of fear. After staying there for a month, she returned to her maternal home due to harassment from her brother-in-law and sister-in-law. In March 2009, during Holi, the respondent was in her native village Agari, when the applicant came there and beat the 3 respondent after drinking alcohol every day. In October 2010, the respondent's mother-in-law died, then the applicant came to his native village, at that time the respondent was in her maternal home. The applicant forbade the respondent from attending the last rites of her mother on the phone, saying that if she comes, she will lose her life and will be murdered. After the last rites, the applicant came to Bodla to meet the respondent and stayed there for a week and even then he kept drinking alcohol every day and beating her. Thinking about public shame and future married life, she never reported against the applicant before the police station. Thereafter, when she got fed up with all these things, she filed a complaint against the applicant. After consideration of the submission of the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application filed by the respondent and passed the award of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5000/-, thus being aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2015, the applicant prefer an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the concerned Family Court for change in amount, the same is dismissed. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the petitioner has been retired from the services of Indian Military and now he will get salary of about Rs.7,000/- per month. It has been further stated that the petitioner has also liability of payment of installment of home loan of Rs.8 Lakh obtained by him for construction of house over the plot purchased by him in the name of respondent, however, the same has been given on rent by her on the monthly rent of Rs.5000/-. The petitioner does not have any agricultural income and 4 even there is no other source of income of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not in a position to pay the maintenance as fixed by the Family Court vide order dated 31.8.2015 passed in MJC No.22/2013 and prayed for alteration of the quantum of maintenance. He further submits that the learned Court below after hearing the parties in the matter, by the impugned order rejected the application for alteration of the quantum of maintenance amounts by holding that there is no change in the circumstances warranting alteration in the amount of maintenance. It is most humble submission of the petitioner that as per provisions of Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C., on proof of a change in the circumstances of any person receiving monthly maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance to his wife, child father or mother, as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit. In the present case also, the petitioner had retired from the service and therefore he is incapable of paying maintenance at the rate as granted earlier in MJC No.22/13 and therefore the Court below ought to have altered the maintenance granted earlier to the respondent wife in view of change in the circumstances i.e. the husband has retired from the service and his income has diminished in view of this retirement from the service. It is further submitted that this change of circumstance definitely affects the capacity of the husband to pay at the old rate of maintenance to the wife. Further, the petitioner has categorically pleaded and proved that the wife is getting rents by letting out the 5 house constructed by the petitioner for her. Since the Court below has not viewed the whole case from proper perspective. He further submits that the petitioner has wrongly filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.7.2016 and the same has been withdrawn vide order dated 7.7.2017 with liberty to avail the remedy available to the petitioner in accordance with law and under the said liberty the petitioner is filing the revision and the the impugned order has been passed by the learned Court below with gross illegality and in view of the petitioner's retirement, there is diminution of his income and that itself amount to change in the circumstance in the financial position or capacity of the petitioner to pay the maintenance as per the earlier orders. The learned Court below ought to have appreciated the fact that the petitioner has neither refused nor neglected to maintain the respondent and it is the respondent who herself had left the company of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant, 6 is an ex-serviceman discharged from military service on March 1, 2016, continues to derive income from agricultural land without any diminution. Consequently, there is no significant alteration in the applicant's financial capacity that would render him incapable of paying the monthly maintenance amount of ₹5,000/- to his wife/respondent. In light of this analysis, it is concluded that the applicant has failed to establish a change in circumstances warranting a revision of the order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing the payment of monthly maintenance to the wife. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal