Bodhaikunda, P.S. Kawardha District Kabirdham (C.G.) v. Dhanesh Verma S
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1104 of 2025 2025:CGHC:45673 NAFR Sahodra Bai Verma W/o Dhanesh Verma, Aged About 45 Years R/o Sukhatal Kawardha District Kabirdham (C.G.) Resent Address Bodhaikunda, P.S. Kawardha District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
Dhanesh Verma S/o Shri Dwarika Verma, Aged About 48 Years R/o Sukhatal Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08.09.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. I.A. No.1 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision of 214 days. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned. 3. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and modify/enhance the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Judge family Court Kawardha 2 District Kabirdham (C.G.) in M.J.C. case No. 133/2023 between parties Sahodra Bai Verma Vs. Dhanesh Verma, and also may be granted maintenance amount sought by the applicant in application under section 125 Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/wife and non- applicant/husband have solemnized marriage in the year 1994 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals custom. After marriage, the applicant was living with non-applicant at her matrimonial house and the non-applicant has harassed and tortured the applicant by physically and mentally & solemnized marriage to other woman vimal & deserted the applicant & his son & daughter. On 04.07.2011, the applicant has filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking a maintenance amount Rs. 2000/- for herself & Rs. 1000/- for her son and Rs. 1000/- for her daughter total of Rs. 4,000/- from the non-applicant on 04.07.2011 as well as also filed an interim maintenance which was partly allowed by the learned Family Court on 28.11.2011 whereby Rs. 500/- has been granted as an interim maintenance in favour of applicant and Rs. 250/- each to her daughter and son total 1000/- as interim maintenance. 5. The Non-applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and denied the contention raised by the applicant and the learned Family Court after hearing both the parties, partly allowed the maintenance application and granted Rs. 1000/- per month to the applicant and Rs. 500/- each for daughter & son per month by order dated 28.02.2014. Thereafter, when the rate of inflation arises, they 3 have unable to live their livelihood due to financial hardship, the applicant has filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., seeking a maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the Non- applicant and thereafter, the non-applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and denied the contention raised by the applicant. 6. The learned Family Court after hearing both the parties, has partly allowed the application under section 127 of Cr.P.C vide order dated 25.10.2024 whereby directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 2500/- per month as maintenance amount in favour of the applicant from the date of passing of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Sahodra Bai Verma, filed Criminal Revision No. 1104/2025, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably which is listed today for hearing. On the other hand, the husband, Dhanesh Verma, filed Criminal Revision No. 64/2025, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside and after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 15.01.2025 has dismissed the revision of the Non- applicant/husband. Hence, this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by learned the Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The 4 applicant has left her matrimonial house due to the cruelty done by the non-applicant and she has suffered mental and physically. He further submits that the non-applicant has sufÏcient income for his survive and his duty to maintain her legal wedded wife very well. The learned Family Court, has partly allowed the application and granted very less amount in favour of the applicant as maintenance only Rs. 2500/- per month vide its order dated 25.10.2024 without proper considering the material available on record and the impugned order is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and the maintenance amount is liable to be enhanced. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and and material available on record, passed the order on 25.10.2024 whereby partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., directing the non-applicant to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Sahodra Bai Verma, filed Criminal Revision No. 1104/2025, contending that the maintenance amount awarded was inadequate, unjust, and insufÏcient to meet the rising cost of living, and therefore prayed for its suitable enhancement. On the other hand, the husband, Dhanesh Verma, filed Criminal Revision No. 64/2025, asserting that the amount awarded was excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore sought its reduction or setting aside. However, upon 5 appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.01.2025, dismissed the husband’s revision petition. 10. While passing the impugned order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non- applicant and the genuine needs of the applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order and the findings recorded by the learned Family Court concerned, 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. 12. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. 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. Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Kunal