Champa, Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Meena Kumar Gabel W
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:32654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1148 of 2019 Sunder Lal Gabel S/o Late Shri Jaggannath Prasad Gabel Aged About 70 Years By Caste Gabel, R/o Banjari, P.O. Adbhar, Thana And Tahsil Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Meena Kumar Gabel W/o Sunderlal Gabel Aged About 37 Years By Caste Gabel, R/o At Present Darrabhanth, Tahsil Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.07.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “The applicants, therefore humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court kindly be please to call for the record of courts below and an order dated 07.02.2019, passed by the learned Family Court, Sakti District Janjgir-Champa 2 (Now Shakti), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 88/2017 may kindly be please to set aside, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.01.2017, the non-applicant married with applicant in the presence of community members through a “chudi marriage” (a customary marriage recognized within the caste) according to traditional rituals. Thereafter, the marriage was afÏrmed through a notarized declaration on a ₹100/- stamp paper. At the time of marriage, non-applicant’s parents and relatives gave gifts according to their means. After the marriage, she began living with the applicant in Village Banjari. In Banjari, the applicant was already living with his two sons, Ramesh and Surendra, born from his previous wife Shanti Bai. Although the applicant initially treated the non-applicant well for about a month, he eventually began abusing and assaulting her under the influence of his sons. He also began depriving her of food and snatched her gold and silver jewelry, keeping them with him. On 29.09.2017, he physically assaulted her and threw her out of the house. The non- applicant further stated in her application that after returning to her parental home, she lodged a complaint against the applicant at the Adbhar police station. However, no action was taken by the police. Since then, she has been living a destitute life at her maternal home. The applicant owns 1.918 hectares of agricultural land in Village Banjari, from which he earns around ₹5,00,000/- annually through paddy farming. He is a financially capable person and is fully able to maintain her but despite having sufÏcient means and income, the applicant has neither made any effort to bring her back nor provided 3 any financial support to her. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, sought maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the non- applicant for her livelihood. 4. The applicant, excluding the admitted facts, stated in brief that he did not marry with the non-applicant. He claimed that the non- applicant had created fake documents regarding the “chudi marriage”. He denied ever living as husband and wife with the non- applicant in Village Banjari. The actual fact, according to the applicant, is that since both belong to the same community, they were acquainted. He claimed the non-applicant is a very cunning woman who once came to him in Village Banjari and demanded money on loan. At that time, the applicant lent her ₹2,07,000/-, with the condition that it would be repaid within 34 months. However, when she failed to repay the loan despite multiple demands, problems arose. The applicant further stated in his reply that on 31.01.2017, when he went to the non-applicant’s house to recover the money, she threatened to falsely implicate him in a rape case. With the help of her brothers, she allegedly took him to Malkharoda and forced him to sign documents under duress. He further alleged that the applicant had also taken ₹1,50,000/- from one Santram Satnami and, to avoid repaying the amount, lodged a false report against him at Sakti police station accusing him of sexually exploiting her under the pretext of marriage. A case under Section 376 IPC is currently pending before the Court against Santram. The applicant claimed that the non-applicant has trapped many people 4 in similar ways and extorted money from them. He further alleged that he never executed any agreement to provide land for the non- applicant’s livelihood. He is a 70-year-old elderly man with a well- established family consisting of his sons, daughters-in-law, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. He is not in a position to marry again or maintain a conjugal relationship. Neither he nor his sons ever assaulted or evicted the non-applicant. He asserted that the non-applicant is making false statements with the intent to blackmail him. Therefore, he requested that the non-applicant’s petition be dismissed. 5. After considering the pleadings and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, upon due appreciation of the facts and evidence place on record, passed the impugned order dated 07.02.2019, whereby the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the non-applicant as maintenance and further ordered to bear Rs. 500/- for litigation expenses. Hence this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that order of learned Family court's is illegal, contrary to the facts and against the well settle law and committed material irregularity in passing the impugned order. He further submits that the learned Family Court ought to have consider that non-applicant is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant, hence application under section 125 of Cr.P.C is non maintainable. That learned Family Court fail to considered the object and scope of the section and only on presumption, allowed maintenance. The applicant having no source of income, despite the learned Family Court granted maintenance to the non-applicant, 5 which is certainly a harsh order for the applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court, had not considered the fact that non- applicant had not able to prove that she was married with the applicant, by no documents oral evidence it had come before the Family Court about the marriage with applicant, Accordingly, the learned Family Court has passed the maintenance amount in higher side without considering the evidence of monthly income of the applicant. Therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant 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 the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹2000/- per month to the non-applicant. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the applicant, 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 6 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 on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Kunal