Nafr High Court
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:34923 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 982 of 2022 Bhukhan Lal Verma S/o Mohan Lal Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Dhmansara- Surgi, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Punam Verma D/o Neetram Kharse Aged About 30 Years R/o Hal Mukam- R/o Village Rewadih, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Duwesh Satyam Verma S/o Punam Verma Aged About 6 Years (Minor) Through Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Punam Verma, D/o Neetram Kharse, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Hal Mukam-Village Rewadih, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant For Non-applicants : : Mr. Ravi K. Bodhani, Advocate (through V.C.). Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravi K. Bodhani, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicants. 2. By way of this revision petition, the applicant prayed for following 2 relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision application in favour of the applicant/revisioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No. 1 and 2 has filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon on 18.01.2021 whereby seeking order of maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month in favour of the non-applicants from the applicant who is loco pilot and working as a train driver. The applicant/revisioner has submitted his para wise reply to the application filed by the non-applicant under Section 125 and denied the averment mentioned in the application and stated that the applicant is not the husband of non-applicant No.1, the applicant is not married to the non-applicant No.1, there is nothing between the applicant and non-applicants. The non- applicant No.1 works in Royal Convent School and is engaged in selling khas specially used in coolers and she received her salary in Indian Bank's account of Poonam Kurmi. The applicant is married to Jhalika father Shekar Patel resident of Dhamansara on 19/11/2020 according to social customs. The non-applicant No.1 is relative of applicant, non- applicant's No.1 marriage was arranged with Narendra Deshmukh father Pilu Deshmukh resident of Thanod and marriage card is also distributed. Punam's real mane is Punam Kharse father Neetram Kharse. Neetram Kharse is applicant's uncle (Mama). Non-applicant No.1 residing with her father in Mudhpar, Tahsil- Dongarshgarh District- Rajnandgaon. She belongs to Kurmi 3 Caste. The applicant did ITI in Dongarhgarh from year 2007 to 2009 and live with his uncle (mama) Gopi Khadse. In the year 2009 after passing ITI he returns back to Dhamansara Rahnandgaon. Then in year 2013 month July applicant got a job in assistant Loco Pilot and went to Tatanagar Bilaspur for training. The applicant's posting has been done in Dongargarh on dated 16.12.2015. The non-applicant No. 1 is daughter of applicant's uncle (mama). 4. The learned Family Court after perusing the non-applicants as well as the reply of the applicant and considering the evidence of both the parties, has partly allowed the application for maintenance to the non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay Rs 3000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs 1000/- per month to non- applicant No.2 ( total 4000/-per month as maintenance). Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant preferred this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The non-applicant No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of applicant, applicant has already married with women named Jhalika father Shekar Patel resident of Dhamansara on 19/11/2020 according to social customs. The non-applicant No.1 is working woman and she works in Royal Convent School and is engaged in selling khas specially used in coolers and she received her salary in Indian Bank's account of Poonam Kurmi account No. 50503987457. He further submits that the non-applicant No.1 is relative of applicant, 4 non-applicant's No.1 marriage was arranged with Narendra Deshmukh father of Pilu Deshmukh resident of Thanod and marriage card is also distributed. The non-applicant No.1 is not legally wedded wife of applicant. Non-applicant No.1 itself stated in her cross examination that no marriage card is ever printed to relate with marriage of applicant nor any kind of marriage ritual is ever happened. The learned Family Court has failed to see the respective procedures of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the matter. While the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Yamunabai V/s State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No. 475 of 1983) cited in AIR 1988 SC 664 it was held that expression wife used in section 125 of the code should be interpreted to mean only a legally wedded wife. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is liable to be set-aside. 6. 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 learned 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicants have succeeded in proving their application. Therefore, keeping in view the social 5 status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expenses granted Rs.3000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 1000/- per month to the non- applicant No.2 towards maintenance, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month to the non-applicants, 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. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- - Kunal Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice