Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh v. Dr. Kanti Kumar Chandrawanshi S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27427 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1269 of 2018 1 - Smt. Nandrani Chandrawanshi W/o Dr. Kanti Kumar Chandrawanshi Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Sarangpurkala, Police Station -Bodha, Present Address Shyam Nagar, Kawardha,police Station - Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Shrishti Chandrawanshi D/o Dr. Kanti Kamar Chandrawanshi Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Nandrani Chandrawanshi W/o Dr. Kanti Kumar Chandrawanshi Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Sarangpurkala Police Station -Bodha , Present Address Shyam Nagar ,kawardha, Police Station - Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. versus Dr. Kanti Kumar Chandrawanshi S/o Iswari Prasad Aged About 35 Years Occupation Goverment Service, R/o Saragpurkala, Police Station And Tahsil Bodha District -Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. ... Applicant For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. 2. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the private respondent. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Kawardha, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 114/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Kawardha, District – Kabirdham, allowed the application under Section 2 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the respondent/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month to the applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant No.2/daughter. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the application for grant of maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC was preferred by the applicants against the respondent stating inter-alia that the present applicant No. 1 was married with the respondent on 06.05.2010 at Village Bhagatpur. The applicant No. 1 started residing with the respondent and his family members and due to their wedlock the applicant No. 2 born and she is natural child of the applicant No. 1 and respondent. At the time of marriage of applicant No.1 her father and relatives have given as dowry and gifts to the new couple as golden and silver ornaments, Sofa Set, Almirah and all other household articles which are presently in the possession of the respondent. Just after a period of two months from the date of marriage the respondent and his family members demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the father of the applicant No. 1 and started cruelty and harassment on demand of dowry. The parent and guardian of applicant No.1 also conducted a meeting and requested to the respondent and his family members but no fruitful result came out. The respondent get appointed in a government service and posted at Dantewada just after a period of three months from the birth of his child namely Ku. Srishti. The respondent continues torture the applicant No.1 for demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs from the parental house of applicant No. 1. It is further stated by the applicant No. 1 that one day night she entered into room and locked the same and thus save her and her daughter's life and informed her father through mobile phone. The father of the applicant No.1 contacted to Police Station Dantewada then 3 the Police and other person tried to understand the respondent and then he promised that he will be not repeat his mistake future but on the occasion of marriage of sister of the applicant No.1 dated 20.05.2014 the respondent committed marpeet with the applicant No. 1 and abused her filthy languages. After the marriage the applicant No. 1 told him that she will not go with him because of his behavior then the respondent threatened her then the applicant No. 1 went with him to Dantewada. The applicant No. 1 along with his daughter was residing with the respondent but in the month of March 2016 she was subjected to cruelty and assaulted by the respondent and thereafter, the respondent took her to parental house and left there. It is further stated applicant that the applicant No.1 is house wife and she has no work to earn and applicant No. 2 is studying in school and the respondent is a government doctor and earning salary Rs. 50,000/-. It is further stated that the respondent also involved in Private Practice and earn Rs. 50,000/- per month and he has 30 acre agricultural land at Village Sarangpurkala from which he earns Rs. 10 Lakhs per year. The respondent is liable to maintain the present applicants as they have no income and the respondent is a person having sufÏcient means. The present applicants prayed for Rs. 25,000/- per month may kindly be awarded as maintenance. The respondent having being served notice by the learned Family Court, appeared and filed reply before the learned Judge Family Court, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) and denied the contention of application under Section 125 of the CrPC, filed by the applicants. The statements of both the parties were recorded, the documents preferred by the parties were perused and arguments advanced by the parties were heard by the learned Family Court and the order has been passed and the application filed by the applicants was partly allowed and Rs. 4 4,500/- and Rs. 3,000/- were awarded to the applicant No. 1 and 2 respectively and further granted Rs. 500/- as maintenance by the impugned order. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) is bad, illegal perverse and contrary to law and evidence available on record and deserve to be modified. Applicants are not able to maintaining theirselves but erred in granting low maintenance about Rs. 4,500/- and Rs. 3,000/- to the applicants whereas, he earns Rs. 1 Lacs per month from his job and Rs. 10 Lacs per year from agriculture. The learned Family Court erred in finding of determination of the fact on various reasons and settled down the alimony in wrong presumption and contents have been wrongly taken into consideration, which is perverse, bad in law and needs modification in the order by increasing the maintenance allowance up to Rs. 25,000/- per month in favour of the applicants as they are unable to maintain their selves because the respondent is having 30 acres of agricultural land and working as doctor in government hospital. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal and liable to be set- aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Kawardha, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 114/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Kawardha, District – Kabirdham, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the respondent/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month to 5 the applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant No.2/daughter, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on 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. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. 6. 7. 8. 9. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar