Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:30934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1425 of 2019 Ravi Tandan S/o Dr. Bhimraj Tandan Aged About 28 Years R/o- Near Government School, Mahalaxmi Kirana Stores, Shiv Nagar, Newaibhata, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh versus ... Applicant 1 - Smt. Hema Tandan W/o Ravi Tandan Aged About 27 Years Present R/o- Village- Thelkadih, Police Station And Tahsil- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Yuvraj Tandan S/o Ravi Tandan Aged About 7 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Lagal/natural Guardian Mother Of The
Legal Reasoning
Respondent No. 1 Smt. Hema Tandan. Present R/o- Village- Thelkadih, Police Station And Tahsil- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Kunal Tandan S/o Ravi Tandan Aged About 5 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal/natural Guardian Mother Of The Respondent No. 1 Smt. Hema Tandan. Present R/o- Village- Thelkadih, Police Station And Tahsil- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Minor Anika Tandan D/o Ravi Tandan, Aged About 05 Months, Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal/natural Guardian Mother Of The Respondent No. 1 Smt. Hema Tandan. Present R/o- Village- Thelkadih, Police Station And Tahsil- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Mandawi Bharadwaj, Advocate. For Respondents : None RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.07.2025 Order on Board 1. 2. Heard Mr. Mandawi Bharadwaj, learned counsel the applicant. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed this criminal revision and the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, Circuit Court, Khairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) dated 19/07/2019 may kindly be quashed and further may kindly be pleased to discharge the applicant from maintenance amount which is awarded against him in the interest of justice. This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass any other order or relief in favour of the present applicant as it deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of Justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent No.1 were married on 22.04.2010 as per Hindu rites, and out of their wedlock, three children respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were born. Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance for herself and her children, alleging cruelty, harassment for dowry, physical assault, and habitual drunkenness by the applicant, due to which she was forced to leave 3 the matrimonial home on 01.06.2018 and reside with her parents. She further claimed she had no independent source of income, while the applicant earned approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month from his general store and other sources. The applicant, in his reply, denied all allegations except the marriage, asserting that the respondent left his home of her own will without sufÏcient cause and refused to return despite a decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed in his favor on 17.05.2019. He contended that he never ill- treated her, was ready to maintain the children, and had filed sufÏcient evidence to prove the respondents were living separately without just cause. After evaluating the evidence, the Family Court, by order dated 19.07.2019 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 84/2018, rejected the maintenance claim of respondent No.1 under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., holding she was residing separately without sufÏcient reason, but awarded Rs. 4,500/- (Rs. 1,500/- each) as monthly maintenance to respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Family Court erred in awarding Rs. 4,500/- per month as maintenance to respondent Nos. 2 to 4, despite sufÏcient evidence that respondent No.1 is residing separately from the applicant without any justifiable or cogent reason. The applicant had made sincere efforts to resume cohabitation, including filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was decided in his 4 favor, yet respondent No.1 refused to return. The applicant contends that respondent No.1 is capable of maintaining herself, being well-educated and employed under government schemes, and therefore not entitled to maintenance. Furthermore, he is willing to maintain his children and keep them with him, and hence, even the award of maintenance to them is unjustified. The applicant also suffers from financial constraints and bears the responsibility of supporting other dependent family members, whereas respondent No.1 falsely alleged cruelty and dowry harassment to avoid living with the applicant. The Family Court failed to properly consider the applicant’s limited earning capacity and ignored material evidence, including the respondents’ ability to sustain themselves. The order, being passed without proper application of judicial mind, deserves to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order passed by the learned Family Court is just, legal, and well-reasoned based on the facts and evidence presented. After thoroughly considering the pleadings and material on record, the Court rightly held that respondent No.1 was residing separately without sufÏcient and cogent reason, particularly in light of the fact that the applicant had obtained a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in his favor and had made genuine efforts to resume cohabitation. The respondent’s allegations of cruelty and harassment remained 5 unsubstantiated, and her refusal to return to the matrimonial home despite repeated opportunities justified the rejection of her maintenance claim under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. At the same time, the Court correctly distinguished the rights of the children and awarded a reasonable maintenance amount of Rs. 4,500/- in total (Rs. 1,500/- per child) to respondent Nos. 2 to 4, recognizing the applicant’s obligation to support his minor children. The Family Court’s decision reflects a balanced and lawful approach, considering both the applicant’s financial condition and the rights of the dependents. 7. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan