Dewangan High Court
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:32925 NAFR CRR No. 1090 of 2022 Pileshwar Sahu S/o Shri Nilamber Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Jhariya-Baahra, Tahsil And P.S. Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Omeshwari Sahu W/o Pileshwar Sahu Aged About 36 Years Residents Of Village Markatola, Tahsil Kanker, P.S. Korar, District North Baster, Kanker Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Dipanshi Sahu D/o Pileshwar Sahu Aged About 17 Years Residents Of Village Markatola, Tahsil Kanker, P.S. Korar, District North Baster, Kanker Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Soniya Sahu D/o Pileshwar Sahu Aged About 15 Years Residents Of Village Markatola, Tahsil Kanker, P.S. Korar, District North Baster, Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant For Non-applicants : : None Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. By way of this revision petition, the applicant prayed for following 2 relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, North-Bastar Kanker, passed in M.J.C. No. 58/2021 in case of (Omeshwari and anr. v. Pileshwar) may kindly be set- aside.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No. 1 was lawfully married to the applicant Pileshwar Sahu as per Hindu customs and rites on April 2004 at Markatola, P.S. Korar, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. After the marriage, the non-applicant No. 1 cohabited with the applicant and dutifully discharged all matrimonial obligations. Out of their said wedlock, two daughters were born: First daughter, Kumari Dipankshi Sahu, born on 26.11.2004, and Second daughter, Kumari Sonia Sahu, born on 28.02.2006. Both daughters are studying in Class 11 at that time and are residing with non-applicant No. 1. The applicant frequently quarreled with and physically assaulted non-applicant No. 1. He would also harass her under the influence of alcohol, demanding dowry and refusing to let her stay at the matrimonial home. In 2008, a report was lodged against the applicant for cruelty and dowry demands of a television and ₹2,00,000/-. Under pressure, the complainant’s father gave a television to the applicant after two months. However, due to pressure from the applicant, the complaint was later withdrawn. After the birth of the second daughter, the applicant resumed abusive behavior, including physical assault, threats to kill, and eventual expulsion of non-applicant No. 1 from the matrimonial 3 house. Since 2008, she has been residing at her parental home with her daughters. After separation in 2008, the applicant, under societal pressure, provided a meager amount of ₹1,500/- annually for the children’s maintenance, which was also discontinued after 2013. Since then, no maintenance has been paid. The non- applicant No.1 is unable to maintain herself and her two daughters. All living and educational expenses have been borne by her parents. However, following the demise of her father, the non- aplicants are facing severe financial hardship. The non-applicant No. 1 had submitted a complaint to the Sakhi One Stop Centre, Kanker, seeking to resume cohabitation or to be granted maintenance. However, the applicant neither agreed to take her back nor agreed to provide any financial support. Therefore, the non-applicant is compelled to approach this before the Family Court seeking maintenance. It is further alleged that the non-applicant No. 1 is suffering from diabetes, and both daughters—Kumari Dipankshi and Kumari Sonia—are diagnosed with Sickle Cell Disease. Their frequent illness adds to the financial burden, making it extremely difÏcult for non-applicant No. 1 to sustain the family. It is further alleged that the applicant is financially well-off. He owns and operates multiple sources of income, including: A petrol pump, a fuel tanker, a tractor, a motorcycle, two JCB machines, two residential houses in village Sonamagar, agricultural land and a motor parts shop, from these, the applicant earns an annual income of approximately ₹8,00,000/- to ₹10,00,000/- (Eight to Ten Lakhs). Therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 4 before the Family Court concerned seeking monthly maintenance requirement of non-applicant No. 1 is ₹20,000/- (Twenty Thousand Rupees). The monthly expense for each daughter—Dipankshi and Sonia—is ₹10,000/- each. Therefore, the total monthly requirement is ₹40,000/- (Forty Thousand Rupees). They also filed interim maintenance application of Rs. 20,000/- and therefore, they prays that amount be granted as maintenance from the date of the application. 3. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 12.09.2022, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1500/- each to non-applicant No. 2 and 3 (total Rs. 5000/-) as an amount of interim maintenance. Hence this revision petition. 4. 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicants before the learned Family Court, seeking interim maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/-from the applicant. After hearing both the parties, the 5 learned Family Court passed the order on 12.09.2022, whereby it has partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicants and it has been directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1500/- each to non- applicant No. 2 and 3 (total Rs. 5000/-) as an amount of interim maintenance. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted Rs. 5000/- per month as interim maintenance to the non-applicants, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. After passing of the order Mr. Ritesh Verma, learned counsel for the applicant appeared and submtis that his presence may be marked. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within three days from today for necessary information and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal