Chandrakant Sahu S/o Jeevrakhan Sahu Aged About 27 Years Resident of School Para, Village v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27071 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1113 of 2024 Chandrakant Sahu S/o Jeevrakhan Sahu Aged About 27 Years Resident of School Para, Village Jevra, Police Station - Khamhariya District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Samiksha Sahu W/o Chandrakant Sahu Aged About 24 Years Resident of Village - Chhapora, Police Station - Vidhansabha, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Minor Garvi Sahu D/o Chandrakant Sahu Aged About 11 Months, Represented Through Mother Samiksha Sahu, Resident of Village - Chhapora, Police Station - Vidhansabha, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.24 17:30:09 +0530 For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23.06.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of respondents when the case is called out of hearing. 2 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 18.09.2024, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief Facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance, along with an application for interim maintenance, before the learned Family Court, Raipur. It was stated therein that the marriage between the applicant and respondent no. 1 was solemnized on 16.04.2022. After marriage, she went to the applicant’s house to fulfill her matrimonial obligations, but was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and his family members on account of dowry demands. During this time, respondent no. 1 was pregnant, and even during her pregnancy, she was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment by her in-laws. On 05.07.2023, respondent no. 2 (a daughter) was born from the said wedlock. Despite this, the in-laws continued to subject her to cruelty and pressured her to bring Rs. 5,00,000/- from her parental home. Due to the non- fulfillment of this demand, the applicant and his family members left her at her parental house on 01.04.2024. Since then, respondent no. 1 has been residing at her parental home along with her minor daughter. On 06.04.2024 and 08.04.2024, respondent no. 1 lodged complaints at the Women’s Police Station, Raipur, and before the Superintendent of Police, Raipur. As a result, FIR bearing Crime 3 No. 56/2024 for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the applicant and other family members at the Women’s Police Station, Raipur. It was further contended that the applicant has sufÏcient means of income, whereas respondent no. 1 has no independent source of income. Therefore, the respondents filed the application seeking maintenance. 5. Upon service of notice, the applicant filed a reply denying the allegations and submitted that he never subjected respondent No. 1 to cruelty or ill-treatment on account of dowry. After marriage, respondent No. 1 avoided doing household work and pressured the applicant to live separately from his parents. However, when the applicant refused to do so, she herself left his house and started living at her parental home without any reasonable cause. The applicant further submitted that he made several efforts to bring respondent No. 1 back to his house, but she refused to live with him. He also stated that respondent No. 1 is a well-educated woman, having completed a B.A. degree. He specifically mentioned that he is ready and willing to keep the respondents with him and to maintain them. However, since respondent No. 1 is living separately without any just cause, she is not entitled to maintenance. Therefore, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. 6. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 18.09.2024, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 01 and respondent No. 02 respectively, from the date of the application, i.e., 4 24.05.2024. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, it is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court committed a grave error of law in directing the applicant to pay Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondents respectively, from the date of the application, i.e., 24.05.2024. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant never subjected respondent No. 1 to cruelty or ill-treatment on account of dowry. The learned Family Court failed to consider that, after marriage, respondent No. 1 avoided performing household duties and pressured the applicant to live separately from his parents. When the applicant refused to do so, she herself left his house and started living separately. Based on the complaint made by respondent No. 1, the Mahila Thana conducted counseling sessions, during which the applicant expressed his willingness to keep respondent No. 1 with him. However, respondent No. 1 refused to live with the applicant. The consents of both parties were recorded in writing by the Counselor of Mahila Thana, Raipur. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 is residing separately at her parental home without any reasonable cause. The learned Family Court overlooked the fact that the applicant made several efforts to bring back respondent No. 1 to his home, but she refused to return and live with him. It is a well-settled principle of law that the benefits under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be claimed as a matter of 5 absolute right. He also submits that the learned Family Court granted maintenance to the respondents on the higher side, which is not sustainable considering the low income of the applicant. The learned Family Court failed to properly consider the documents and evidence submitted before it, and thereby arrived at a baseless and unsustainable conclusion. For the reasons stated above, among
Decision
others, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. However, the concerned Family Court, Raipur is directed to conclude the the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., Preferably within a period of four months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. - Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice