Pankaj Verma S/o Gopal Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sohawal, P.S. Amodha v. Smt. Dolly Loniya (Verma) W/o Pankaj Verma Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Sohawal
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:40535 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 991 of 2025 Pankaj Verma S/o Gopal Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sohawal, P.S. Amodha, District Satna M.P. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Dolly Loniya (Verma) W/o Pankaj Verma Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Sohawal, P.S. Amodha, District Satna M.P., At Present R/o Majgaon Road, Village Saigona, P.S. And Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12.08.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned in case Judge, Family Court, District Kabirdham, number M.cr.case no 171/2024 in between Pankaj Verma V/s Smt. Dolly Loniya, 2 (Verma) in which learned family court has rejected application U/s 145 (1) of B.N.S.S. 2023, (ΑΝΝΕXURE A/1.) in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that at the time of arranging the marriage, the applicant’s family informed that the present applicant was an engineer and employed in an MNC company. The marriage between the non-applicant and the applicant was solemnized on 08/05/2017 at village Saigona, as per social customs, traditions, and rituals. After the wedding, the non- applicant went to her matrimonial home in village Sohawal, Madhya Pradesh, where the applicant resided with his joint family. The non-applicant started living there, fulfilling her marital duties. However, shortly after the marriage, the applicant and his family began harassing the non-applicant for bringing a car as dowry. When the non-applicant refused, they used to beat her, accusing her of being argumentative. After one year of marriage, when there was no child, the applicant and his family members further harassed the non-applicant, calling her inauspicious and barren and subjected her to obscene abuses and physical assault. The applicant is addicted to alcohol and under its influence, frequently assaulted the applicant with kicks and punches while uttering the aforementioned words, leaving the non-applicant extremely fearful and traumatized. Whenever someone from the non- 3 applicant’s parental home came to visit her, the applicant’s family would quarrel and drive them away. Further the applicant is a person of sufÏcient means and has completed engineering. He works at Aditya College, Amodha Road, Ganj Sohawal, earning a monthly salary of ₹35,000/-. Additionally, the applicant’s father owns 5 acres of fertile, borewell-irrigated agricultural land, yielding an annual net income of about ₹5,00,000/- after expenses. His father is also employed as a Supervisor at Sangam Nirma Factory, earning ₹40,000/- per month. Furthermore, the applicant has sold 1.25 acres of land at village Sherganj for ₹80,00,000/-, which amount remains in his possession. At the time of marriage, the applicant received mangalsutra, a gold ring, two silver waistbands, two pairs of silver anklets, one gold necklace, and gold earrings as wedding gifts. On 06/05/2023, the applicant came to Kawardha, quarreled with the non-applicant, and took away these items with him. All other articles given by the non-applicant’s father at the time of marriage are still in the custody of the applicant at her matrimonial home. Due to continuous harassment by the applicant and his family, the non-applicant has become extremely weak, her health remains poor, and she is unable to engage in any income-generating work, leading her to live in severe hardship and deprivation. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned 4 Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance of Rs. ₹25,000/- per month. 3. As per the case record, on 20.03.2024, since the applicant remained absent, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him. He has neither filed a written statement nor submitted an afÏdavit providing details of his assets and liabilities. 4. After considering the facts of the case, the learned Family Court has issued notice to present applicant, but due to his residing in another state present applicant could not received the notice, issued by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham and learned Family Court has taking evidence from the non- applicant and after consideration dated 03.05.2024, it has been partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife as maintenance. The present applicant has received notice in case of MJC No.326/2024 Dolly Loniya Vs Pankaj Verma, which is filed by the non-applicant under section 144(3) of BNSS, 2023. Then the present applicant has filed application under section 145 of BNSS 2023 for setting aside order dated 03.05.2024, in which notice has been issued to the non- applicant, but which return as not served, but learned Family Court has marked her appearance in case of MJC 326/2024, filed by the non-applicant for recovery of the said maintenance amount. After consideration of the application, learned Family 5 Court has rejected the application filed by the present applicant on the basis of delay vide order dated 05.06.2025. Hence this revision 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 is bad in law as well as in facts, and liable to be set aside. He fur further submits that the learned Family Court has not appreciated that the applicant has filed divorce petition before the Family Court Satna, M.P. but in that case non-applicant not appeared there for that was ex-party ordered vide dated 14.06.2023 in which divorce has been decreed in favour of the applicant and till today no any appeal filed by the applicant against the divorce decree. The non- applicant has not produced any document regarding source of the income of the present applicant, without any facts and grounds consider learned Family Court has awarded 5000/- per month maintenance is injustice with the present applicant. Accordingly, the same is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that after considering the facts of the case, the learned Family Court issued notice to the present applicant. However, as the applicant was residing in another State, he could not receive the notice issued by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham. 6 Thereafter, the learned Family Court proceeded to record the evidence of the non-applicant and upon due consideration, vide order dated 03.05.2024, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay a sum of ₹5,000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife towards maintenance. Subsequently, the present applicant received notice in MJC No. 326/2024, Dolly Loniya vs. Pankaj Verma, which was filed by the non-applicant under Section 144(3) of BNSS, 2023. Thereafter, the present applicant filed an application under Section 145 of BNSS, 2023 for setting aside the order dated 03.05.2024, in which notice was issued to the non-applicant; however, the same was returned unserved. Despite this, the learned Family Court marked the appearance of the non-applicant in MJC No. 326/2024, filed by her for recovery of the said maintenance amount. After considering the applicant’s application, the learned Family Court rejected it on the ground of delay vide order dated 05.06.2025. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court, 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. 7 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10.OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action. Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Kunal