Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. Sohanlal Mandle S
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:32651 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1341 of 2019 1 - Smt. Tulsi Binda W/o Shri Sohanlal Mandle Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 49, Kuan Chowk, Nandai, Rajnanadgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhupendra Mandle S/o Shri Sohanlal Mandle Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 49, Kuan Chowk, Nandai, Rajnanadgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
3 - Kumari Pratima Mandle D/o Shri Sohanlal Mandle Aged About 18 Years R/o Ward No. 49, Kuan Chowk, Nandai, Rajnanadgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kumari Bhawna Mandle D/o Shri Sohanlal Mandle Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 49, Kuan Chowk, Nandai, Rajnanadgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Sohanlal Mandle S/o Shri Chakkudas Aged About 53 Years Occupation Head Master, Primary School Bundeli, R/o Ward No. 9, Udaipur, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the non- applicant. 2. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 93/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicant Nos. 3 and 4 and granted maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month each to applicant Nos. 3 and 4 however, there is no discussion made about the applicant No.1 and 2, neither rejected their application nor accepted. Hence, this revision. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No. 1 was married to the non-applicant on 27.05.1990 according to Hindu customs and social traditions. Out of the wedlock, applicants no. 2 to 4 (children) were born. The applicant No. 1 alleged that in the year 1995, she was subjected to severe physical and mental cruelty and harassment for dowry by the non- applicant and his relatives. She filed a report on 03.11.1995 at Rajnandgaon police station. During the proceedings, the non- applicant assured not to harass her and promised to live peacefully, after which she resumed her matrimonial life with him. However, for 3 the past six months, he allegedly became addicted to excessive alcohol consumption and again started abusing her physically and verbally. Eventually, he threw her and the children out of the house. Since then, they have been residing at her father’s home in Rajnandgaon. It is further alleged that due to an injury in one of her eyes caused by an accident, she requires around ₹30,000/- every month for medication and injections. Additionally, about ₹10,000/- per month is spent on the children’s college fees and education, all of which are dependent on the non-applicant’s income. She alleged that he has intentionally neglected his duties and has failed to provide any financial support. It is claimed that the non-applicant works as a Head Teacher and earns a salary of ₹70,000/- per month. Due to his neglect, the future of the applicant and her children has become uncertain and financially insecure. Therefore, she requested before the Family Court to direct the non-applicant to pay ₹40,000/- per month as maintenance for herself and the children. 4. The non-applicant, in his reply, stated that the applicant No.1 had earlier lodged a false complaint of dowry harassment and physical assault against him and his parents and brother at Chuikhadan police station on 30.10.1995, based on which Criminal Case No. 187/1997 was registered before the Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh. However, on 15.05.1998, he and his family members were acquitted of all charges. He further stated that during that period, applicant No. 1 had filed a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC (Case No. 3/1995) in the Court of Judicial 4 Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, and he was regularly paying ₹600/- per month as maintenance. Later, the matter was settled mutually, and the recovery proceedings were withdrawn. The non- applicant claimed that the applicants had voluntarily resumed living with him, and a peaceful marital life was continued. However, now they are intentionally avoiding living with him and are filing this false application to harass him and extract money. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the impugned order granting Rs.3,000/- as claim of monthly maintenance against total Rs.40,000/- is too meager to be sustained in law and looking to the price index, inflation rate, hike in price of goods of daily needs and status & the non-applicant/ husband, the salary maintenance amount is negligible for human being to survive during these days and therefore deserves to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/- per month. He further submits that the non-applicant is a man of means and he has wherewithal to pay maintenance amount, as claimed, to the applicants, who are depending on others for their day to day requirements. It is settled position of law that a wife is entitled to live in a similar status as was enjoyed by her in her matrimonial home. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure that it should not be a case that one spouse lives in a life of comfort and luxury while the other spouse lives a life of deprivation, poverty. He further submits that an amount Rs.3000/- for four persons is inadequate for livelihood and it would be difÏcult for human being to survive in such amount. Meager amount of Rs.3,000/- awarded would not be sufÏcient enough to meet even day today expenses of the applicants. 5 Therefore, he pays that the impugned order deserves to be set- aside. 6. Learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has observed that the non-applicant was bearing the educational expenses of the children by transferring funds into their bank accounts at different intervals, as supported by documentary evidence and admitted by the applicant during cross-examination. However, no documentary evidence has been submitted to show that any amount has been provided for maintenance after 05.02.2017. This clearly reflects that the non-applicant has failed in his legal duty to maintain applicant Nos. 3 and 4 since February 2017. Considering that the non-applicant is gainfully employed and financially capable, it is held that he is under an obligation to provide maintenance. Therefore, the Family Court finds it just and proper to direct the non-applicant to pay maintenance of ₹1,500 per month each to applicant Nos. 3 and 4, considering the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 6 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal