Premnarayan Sinha S/o Late Shrio Radheshyam Sinha Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Sankara v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:30943 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1295 of 2019 Premnarayan Sinha S/o Late Shrio Radheshyam Sinha Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Sankara, Police Station Sihawa, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Menka Sinha W/o Premnarayan Sinha, D/o Kamta Prasad, R/o Village Sankara, Tahsil Nagari At Present Address Chandni Chowk Loharshi, P. S. Arjuni District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2. Ayush Sinha S/o Premnarayan Sinha Aged About 15 Years
Legal Reasoning
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. - Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice
Arguments
Through Legal Guardian (Mother Smt. Menka Sinha) R/o Village Sankara, Tahsil Nagari At Present Address Chandni Chowk Loharshi, P. S. Arjuni District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 3. Bhavesh Sinha S/o Premnarayan Sinha Aged About 11 Years Through Legal Guardian (Mother Smt. Menka Sinha) R/o Village Sankara, Tahsil Nagari At Present Address Chandni Chowk Loharshi, P. S. Arjuni District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manish Sahu, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ganesh Ram Burman, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.07 19:16:19 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07.07.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Manish Sahu, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Ganesh Ram Burman, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased set-aside the judgment dated 21.08.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Distt. Raipur, (C.G.) in MJC No. 92/2017, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case that the respondent filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance of Rs. 50,000/-, pleading that she married the applicant on 06.05.2001, and from their wedlock, they were blessed with two sons: respondent No. 2, Ayush, and respondent No. 3, Bhavesh Sinha. The applicant kept his wife happy for the first two years of marriage, but after two and a half years, he began to torture her physically and mentally, using vulgar abuses and lewd language over trivial matters. This harassment was supported by her mother- in-law, Devaki, and grandfather-in-law, Darbarilal Sinha. The applicant used to consume alcohol and created a tense atmosphere 3 in the house, due to which the respondent suffered serious injuries to her head, near her eye, and on other parts of her body, for which she was treated at Christian Hospital, Dhamtari. The respondent further submitted that when she received a call on the applicant’s mobile phone, a girl answered, and upon checking, she found recorded indecent conversations between the applicant and the said girl. When she questioned the applicant regarding this, he assaulted and threatened her, asking her not to interfere in his personal life. Her father-in-law expressed his condolences, and the harassment being inflicted by the applicant and his family was informed to community members. Upon the intervention of community dignitaries, the applicant promised in writing not to consume alcohol, abuse, or assault his wife and children. However, despite these assurances, his behaviour did not change, and when the respondent became fed up with his misconduct, she returned to her maternal home. Later, the applicant, along with elders from his family and society, came to the respondent’s house, apologized, and executed an agreement on a Rs. 100/- stamp paper promising not to repeat such behaviour. Trusting him, the respondent returned to her matrimonial home, but within a week, the applicant again started abusing her. On 23.03.2016, when she attended a family programme in Kanharpuri, the applicant abused her vulgarly and broke her mangalsutra, after which she was rescued by family and society members. On the same date, she returned to her maternal home with her children. She lodged a report at Police Station Arjuni, and the matter was referred to Mahila Cell, Dhamtari for counseling, 4 which failed, forcing her to continue residing at her maternal home with her children. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application seeking maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- from the applicant. 4. The applicant filed his reply stating in Para 5 that he had always taken care of his wife and had never assaulted her. The applicant further stated in Para 6 that his wife, Smt. Menka, suspected him of having an illicit relationship with another woman, whereas he had no such relationship. The applicant further stated in Para 7 that in 2007, his father became ill and was bedridden due to paralysis, requiring daily care, while his wife treated his father with hatred and planned to leave for her maternal home. The applicant informed his wife’s parents about the situation, and they assured him that they would explain to her and took her to their home at Village Loharshi. The applicant further stated in his special statement in Para 1 that respondent No. 1, Smt. Menka, abandoned his house and has been teaching their children to act against him. According to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where the wife herself abandons the husband’s house, she is not entitled to receive maintenance. 5. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed two issues and directed the parties to lead evidence. The respondent No. 01, Menka, examined herself as A.W.-1 and her witnesses, Smt. Leelabai (A.W.-2) and Gajendra (A.W.-3). The applicant, Premnarayan Sinha, examined himself as N.A.W.-1 and his witness, Sampat Sinha, as N.A.W.-2. After examination and cross-examination of the witnesses of both 5 parties, the learned Family Court heard the arguments and, thereafter, vide order dated 21.08.2019, granted maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to Menka Sinha and Rs. 3,000/- per month each to both the children from the date of the order. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate Para 28 of the deposition of Menka Sinha (A.W.-1), wherein she referred to the medical certificate marked as Exhibit P-18, in which the doctor stated that the head injury was caused by a fall in the bathroom. In the discharge slip marked as Exhibit P-19, the doctor noted giddiness, headache, and vomiting, and in the document marked as Exhibit P-22, the doctor mentioned hypertension and body pain. However, in Exhibits P-18, P-19, and P-22, there is no mention that the respondent was assaulted by the applicant under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, the learned Family Court has wrongly awarded maintenance to his wife, Menka Sinha. He submits that learned Family Court also failed to appreciate Para 27 of the deposition of Menka Sinha (A.W.-1), wherein she stated that she has been living separately from her husband since 21.03.2016, and that she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. only after the applicant had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She also stated that before filing the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., she had reported the matter to Police Station Arjuni and to the Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari, where no action was taken against the applicant, and thereafter, she filed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the applicant. He further submits that 6 the order of maintenance ought to be quashed as the wife has left the matrimonial home of the applicant without any justifiable cause, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side