Bhatapara (C.G.) v. Ranjeet Kumar S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38431 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1173 of 2022 1. Smt. Gayatri Bai W/o Ranjit Aged About 31 Years R/o - Village Basin Suhela, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 2. Ku. Pratika D/o Ranjeet Ghritlahre Aged About 7 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Gayatri Bai, R/o - Village Basin Suhela, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Ranjeet Kumar S/o Ram Prasad Aged About 33 Years R/o Nawapara, P.S. Dhawai, Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. : None. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.08 20:29:45 +0530 04.08.2025 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 28.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Baloda-Bazar, District – Baloda-Bazar -Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.394/2019, whereby the learned Trial Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, without full and final payment of maintenance amount as awarded by the Trial Court, that the learned Trial Court has disposed of 2 the application without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without considering the relief sought by the applicant in her application and also rejected the application for payment of remaining maintenance till the disposal of the application. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent took place in the year 2011 as per Hindu rituals at Village Basin, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. Out of the said wedlock, a son, Hitesh, and a daughter, Pritika, were born. The respondent/husband physically assaulted the applicant wife, expelled her from the matrimonial home, and forcefully retained custody of the minor son. He also misbehaved with the applicant’s father when he visited the matrimonial home and took money saved by the applicant from her stitching work. Due to continuous harassment, the applicant was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and take shelter at her parental home. Having no independent source of income, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance for herself and her minor daughter before the Family Court, Baloda Bazar. The case was registered as M.J.C. No. 92/2016 and was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 23.02.2018, granting Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant and Rs. 1,000/- per month to her daughter, totaling Rs. 3,000/-. 3. Upon receiving notice, the respondent appeared before the Court and denied the allegations made by the applicant. Despite the Court’s order, the respondent failed to pay the awarded maintenance regularly, leaving the applicant with no option but to file an application for recovery of Rs. 6,000/- pending for two months. The applicant further filed an application for recovery of arrears amounting to Rs. 1,02,000/- for the period from 23.02.2018 to 23.02.2022 and subsequently closed the proceedings 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent cleared only the amount of Rs. 6,000/- after the issuance of an arrest warrant by the trial court. As of now, the respondent is still liable to pay an outstanding amount exceeding Rs. 1,02,000/-. 4. The learned Trial Court erred in law and fact by closing the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. merely on the ground that Rs. 6,000/- had been deposited by the respondent, without considering the separate application filed by the applicant for recovery of arrears amounting to Rs. 1,02,000/-. The application dated 02.05.2018 was filed for the months of March and April 2018, but the trial Court, while disposing of the said application on 28.09.2022, failed to adjudicate the claim for the entire period from 23.02.2018 to 23.02.2022. The trial Court wrongly recorded that there was no pending recoverable amount, thereby ignoring the respondent's continued non-compliance. The order passed is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. Hence, the present revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Family Court, is illegal, improper, and unsustainable in law to the extent that it erroneously records there is no pending recoverable amount from the respondent husband. The learned Family Court erred in disposing of the proceedings without ensuring full and final payment of the maintenance amount awarded by the Trial Court, which is contrary to law and principles of justice. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is entitled to maintenance for the period from 23.02.2018 to 23.02.2022. The applicant had filed a specific application requesting recovery of the said amount and had sought that proceedings be
Decision
disposed of only after such recovery. The Family Court overlooked the 4 fact that the application dated 02.05.2018 was for recovery of Rs. 6,000/- for March and April 2018 only. The order dated 28.09.2022 disposed of this application, but ignored that no maintenance was paid by the respondent/husband during the intervening period as well. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is living separately due to cruelty inflicted by the respondent/husband and his family. The absence of a police complaint does not negate the fact of cruelty, as the applicant refrained from initiating criminal proceedings with the hope of reconciliation. The Executing Court did not consider that the applicants are unable to maintain themselves, and that Applicant No. 1 has no independent source of income and is entirely dependent on the respondent for her livelihood. The respondent has not specifically denied his income in his reply, thereby not rebutting the applicant’s claim regarding his financial capacity. The learned Family Court erroneously and partially disposed of the proceedings without considering the applicant’s specific prayer for recovery of the pending maintenance amount. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. 6. 7. 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 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 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. 5 Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice 8. 9. Preeti