C.G.) v. Ravi Yadav S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:42396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1033 of 2025 Smt. Seema Yadav W/o Ravi Yadav D/o Maniram Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o- Latti Para, Kanker, Tehasil And P.S. Kanker, District- Kanker, 494334 ( C.G.). ... Applicant versus Ravi Yadav S/o Sukhdev Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Bhanwar Mara, Post OfÏce- Singhola, District- Rajnandgaon, 491441 ( C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.22 11:06:11 +0530 21.08.2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 1. 2. Heard Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the interim maintenance vide order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Court of Learned Judge, Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker, (C.G.) passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 11/2025 may kindly be set-aside and the respondent husband may kindly 2 be direct to give interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to the applicant wife, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant/wife filed an application under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. (corresponding to Section 125 of Cr.P.C.) before the Learned Family Court seeking interim maintenance from the respondent, who is the husband of the applicant/wife. The applicant and the respondent got married on 30.06.2024 as per Hindu rituals and customs, and since then they started residing together in the matrimonial house. The applicant was previously married to Manish Yadav, S/o Late Gopinath Yadav, whose marriage was dissolved on 06.09.2016 by mutual consent before the Learned Family Court, Bastar. Similarly, the respondent was previously married to Saraswati Yadav, whose marriage was dissolved on 27.03.2013 by mutual consent before the Learned Family Court, Durg. Thereafter, the applicant and the respondent solemnized their marriage on 30.06.2024 as per Hindu and social customs. After marriage, the applicant and respondent resided together in the matrimonial house of the respondent/husband for about six months. Thereafter, the behaviour of the respondent/husband suddenly changed. He started consuming alcohol regularly, beating the applicant/wife, and demanding dowry. The respondent/husband was also having an extra-marital/love affair with another lady, namely Komal Yadav. On 19.10.2024, the said lady came to the matrimonial house and created a dispute with the applicant/wife and other family members. On 28.11.2024, the applicant/wife went to Kanker for her physical test for the C.G. Police Constable Recruitment. Thereafter, she had to visit Jagdalpur but was facing difÏculty in travelling alone. She requested the respondent/husband to accompany her, but he refused. The husband informed the applicant that he had to go to Uttar Pradesh for some work. 3 The applicant thereafter returned to the matrimonial house on 22.12.2024, where again disputes and quarrels were raised by the respondent/husband. On 25.12.2024, the applicant/wife called her family members. On that date, the respondent/husband wrote a letter to the applicant’s father and family members, assuring that he would end his relationship with the said lady and live peacefully with the applicant/wife. Despite such assurance, the respondent/husband again started subjecting the applicant/wife to physical and mental harassment for dowry. He even dragged her out of the matrimonial house and threatened to bring Komal Yadav back into his life. Thereafter, on 09.01.2025, the applicant/wife was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and is since then residing with her parents. The respondent/husband has failed to provide any maintenance to the applicant/wife and has even stopped responding to her calls for support. The applicant/wife is unable to maintain herself, and all her expenses are presently being borne by her parents 4. The respondent/husband is employed as an Assistant Committee Manager in the Service Cooperative Society, District Rajnandgaon, drawing a monthly salary of around Rs. 40,000/- (Forty Thousand). He has also purchased a house in Village Manki, from which he earns monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand). Further, his agricultural income is about Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum. Thus, the overall annual income of the respondent is approximately Rs. 7,40,000/- (Seven Lakh Forty Thousand). 5. On 17.02.2025, the applicant/wife filed an application under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. (corresponding to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) before Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker, 4 seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) per month. A copy of the said application is annexed herewith as Annexure A/2. 6. 7. In the meantime, the present respondent/husband filed his reply denying all the allegations made by the applicant/wife. On 18.06.2025, the Learned Family Court, Kanker, dismissed the application of the applicant/wife. The Court observed in its order that the applicant/wife had stated in her afÏdavit that she is a postgraduate (M.A. in Hindi Literature), is residing separately since 09.01.2025, and has not claimed to be physically or mentally incapacitated. The Learned Court, without properly appreciating the facts and evidence available on record, erroneously rejected the application. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad, improper, and unreasonable and learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the present applicant is not a working lady and is totally dependent on her father, who is a labourer by profession. He further submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is posted as an Assistant Committee Manager in the Service Cooperative Society, District Rajnandgaon, which is itself a reputed post, as also stated in his afÏdavit. The applicant and her family members themselves supported her version, and in that regard afÏdavits were also filed before the learned Family Court. He also submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent, in his afÏdavit dated 30.06.2024 (para 8), clearly stated that if he leaves or abandons the applicant, then he himself shall be liable for social penalty. He further submits that the respondent, in his letter dated 25.12.2024 written to the father of the applicant in the 5 presence of witnesses and family members, acknowledged that the applicant, Smt. Seema Yadav, is his lawful wife and assured that he would end his relationship with the lady, namely Komal Yadav. However, even after such a community meeting and written assurance, the respondent dragged the applicant out of her matrimonial home. ecause Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant/wife has been residing in her maternal home since 09.01.2025, whereas the respondent is cohabiting with the said lady, Komal Yadav, as his wife. He also submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is completely dependent on her parents, her father being a labourer by profession, while the respondent is gainfully employed as an Assistant Committee Manager, drawing a handsome salary and also having other sources of income. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that false allegations were made by the respondent/non-applicant against the wife regarding her character, alleged abuse, and mental torture, without any substantiating evidence. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the right of a wife to claim maintenance cannot be denied merely on the ground that she is highly educated. The application for grant of maintenance has been wrongly rejected on this sole ground. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has dismissed the application under Section 144 of the BNSS filed by the applicant observing that the applicant/wife had stated in her afÏdavit that she is a postgraduate (M.A. in Hindi Literature), 6 is residing separately since 09.01.2025, and has not claimed to be physically or mentally incapacitated. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
Decision
12. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash / modify the impugned order is refused. 13. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., preferably within a period of two months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek