Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:47521 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1142 of 2025 Rajababu Kashyap S/o Shri Hirday Kashyap Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Rahod, P.S. Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant
Legal Reasoning
Monika Kashyap W/o Shri Rajababu Kashyap Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Amanala Dafai, Haldibadi, Chirmiri, P.S. Chirmiri, District- M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.17 14:16:41 +0530 16.09.2025 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District : M.C.B (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case. No.01/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 7,000/- per month to respondent/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent filed an application 2 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000 from the applicant. According to the respondent (applicant before the Family Court), she solemnized marriage with the applicant on 04.02.2022 at Shiv Mandir, Godripara Chirmiri. A declaration letter confirming the marriage was executed. Thereafter, the applicant took the respondent from her maternal home. On 15.04.2022, the respondent, along with her brother and others, went to the applicant’s house to reside at her matrimonial home. However, the applicant’s family members quarreled with her, expressed unwillingness to let her stay, and even threatened her with murder. A complaint was lodged by the respondent at the Shivrinarayan Police Station, where the police forced a compromise. The respondent returned to her maternal home. About a week later, the applicant brought her back, but after one month, he mentally harassed her and again ousted her from the matrimonial home. Since then, the respondent has been residing with her parents. The respondent is not well-educated, has no means of livelihood, and is financially dependent. The applicant is employed as a constable in the police department, earning approximately Rs.50,000 per month, and also owns 10 acres of agricultural land from which he allegedly earns Rs.10,00,000 annually. Since the respondent has no source of income, she filed an application seeking ?20,000 per month as maintenance. Upon issuance of notice, the applicant filed a written statement denying all allegations. After framing issues and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court passed an order dated 13.05.2025, allowing the maintenance application and directing the 3 applicant to pay Rs.7,000 per month from the date of filing of the application. The said order is impugned as illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence. The respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and the alleged marriage was not solemnized as per Hindu Law. A similar issue was decided in Cr.R No. 252/2018, Ratni Aditya vs. Ramkhilawan Aditya, wherein the court dismissed the claim for maintenance. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed, and the respondent is not entitled to maintenance. The respondent lodged a false FIR No. 1304/2022 under Section 376(2)(n) IPC against the applicant. The learned Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. In her statement in Sessions Case No. 37/2023 (State of C.G. vs. Raja Babu Kashyap), the respondent admitted that no valid marriage was solemnized with the applicant. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to maintenance. The respondent unlawfully entered the house of the applicant’s parents and caused a dispute, prompting them to file a police complaint on 24.09.2023 at Shivrinarayan Police Station. 4. The respondent also filed a false FIR No. 452/2023 dated 31.10.2023 at Pamgarh Police Station under Section 354 IPC against the applicant's brother. She has further initiated false proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against the applicant's family members, which are still pending. These actions show malafide intent, and hence, the respondent is not entitled to 4 maintenance. The respondent and her family members forcibly entered the applicant’s house and deliberately quarreled with his parents, attempting to reside there against their will. The applicant and his family have consistently refused to accept the respondent, as no valid marriage was solemnized under Hindu Law. The respondent made an illegal demand of Rs.20,00,000 from the applicant without any lawful justification. The respondent has failed to prove that the applicant earns Rs. 50,000 per month. Therefore, awarding Rs.7,000 per month as maintenance is unjustified and liable to be set aside. 5. The applicant’s net salary is Rs. 36,000 per month, from which Rs.14,757 and Rs.11,478 are deducted towards loan repayments. Additionally, the applicant provides Rs.10,000 per month to his aged parents. He is therefore financially incapable of paying maintenance to the respondent. All allegations made by the respondent are false and baseless. Moreover, the respondent is well-educated and has sufficient means to sustain herself. Thus, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. In light of the above facts and legal grounds, the order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on 5 record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Chief Justice Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Preeti