Dantewada (C.G.) v. Ankit Soni S
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:38423 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 953 of 2025 1 - Smt. Harshita Soni W/o Ankit Soni Aged About 29 Years R/o Through Umesh Kumar Kesharwani, S/o R.P. Kesharwani Shailendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Presently R/o House No. 229/01 Behind Sai Nagar, Bacheli, District- Dantewada (C.G.) 2 - Lado Soni D/o Ankit Soni Aged About 8 Years Through Natural
Legal Reasoning
Guardian Mother Smt. Harshita Soni W/o Ankit Soni Aged 29 Years R/o Through Umesh Kumar Kesharwani, S/o R.P. Kesharwani Shailendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Presently R/o House No. 229/01 Behind Sai Nagar, Bacheli, District- Dantewada (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Ankit Soni S/o Ashok Soni Aged About 31 Years R/o Rudra Chowk, Raipura Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04.08.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and quash the 2 judgment dated 20/05/2025 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1185/2019 by which the application Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been dismissed with respect to the applicant no.1 and partly allowed with respect to the applicant no.2 and consequently allowed the application of the applicants Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant No.1 and the non-applicant was solemnized as per the Hindu Ritual on 26/04/2016 at Raipur and from their wedlock, the applicant No.2 was born on 24/01/2018. After 10 days of the marriage, the family members of the non-applicant started taunting the applicant No.1 for the less dowry and used to harass the applicant No.1 mentally, physically and financially. The entire stree dhan of the applicant No.1 has been taken by the mother-in-law of the applicant No. 1. On 04/12/2019, the In-laws of the applicant No.1 has expel them from the house, therefore, the applicant No.1 has lodge the written report at Mahil Thana, Raipur and due to lack of financial support, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 sought maintenance amount of Rs. 50,000/-per month for herself and her daughter from the non-applicant. 3. The non-applicant has filed its reply to the application in which the non-applicant has denied the averment of the application and stated 3 that the mother and brother of the applicant No.1 are living at Raipur after the marriage and started interference in the life of the applicants and non-applicant and the behavior of the applicant No.1 was also not good toward the non-applicant and the family members of the non-applicant. The applicant No. 1 has lodge the false report against the non-applicant and the family members of the non-applicant. Hence the non-applicant prays for dismissal of the application as the applicants without any reason has left the company of the non- applicant. 4. After considering the pleadings and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, upon due appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, partly allowed the application in favour of applicant No.2 namely Lado Soni whereby directed the non- applicant to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/- to her till majority further, rejected the application filed by the applicant No.1 on the ground that without any sufÏcient reason, she is residing separately from the non-applicant and it is also evident from the record that in the case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, an amount of ₹6,000/- per month has been jointly granted as interim maintenance to the applicants. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) has erred in dismissing the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with respect to the applicant 4 No.1. The Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) has erred in holding that the applicant No.1 without any sufÏcient reason has left the company of the non- applicant and therefore, the applicant no.1 is not entitled for maintenance. He further submits that the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) erred in holding that the applicants have failed to prove the income of the non-applicant and further he has also erred in deciding the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the applicant. The learned Family Court has also erred in awarding the amount of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the non- applicant No.2 without any reason. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned Family Court concerned, it transpires that an amount of Rs. 3000/- per month has been awarded towards maintenance to the applicant No. 2/daughter and after appreciating the document and evidence placed on record, rejected the application of the applicant No.1/wife. on the ground that without any sufÏcient reason, she is residing separately from the non-applicant and it is also evident from the record that in the case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, an amount of ₹6,000/- per month has been jointly granted as interim maintenance to the applicants. It appears 5 that the learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting maintenance solely to the minor child, considering her status as a dependent and the legal obligation of the father to maintain her. The absence of any finding or relief regarding applicant No.1 indicates that the Court did not find sufÏcient grounds to allow her claim for maintenance, which, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be erroneous or unjustified. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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/- Sd/- Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Kunal