Colony, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh v. Sharad Kumar Sharma S
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:32941 NAFR CRR No. 1240 of 2022 1 - Sonal Sharma W/o Sharad Sharma Aged About 33 Years Resident Of Professor Colony, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 2 - Aadya Sharma D/o Sharad Sharma Aged About 8 Years Through The Legal Guardian Mother Sonal Sharma. Resident Of Professor Colony, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 3 - Aditi Sharma D/o Sharad Sharma Aged About 3 Years Through The Legal Guardian Mother Sonal Sharma. Resident Of Professor Colony, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Sharad Kumar Sharma S/o Late Bhagwat Prasad Sharma Aged About 39 Years Caste Brahmin, R/o In Front Of Sbi Atm, Main Road, Sakri Ward No 1, Nagar Nigam Bilaspur, Post And Ps Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 15.07.2025 2 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Harsh Dave, learned counsel appearing for the Non- applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 28.09.2022 and kindly directed to non-applicant for paying maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month for applicant No. 1 and 10,000-10,000/- per month for applicant No. 2 & 3. In the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha) for maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10000/- per month for herself and 10,000/- per month for applicant No. 2 & 3 who are living with their mother i.e. applicant No. 1, whereby submitted that the marriage of applicant No.1 and non-applicant was solemnized on 24.02.2011 at Indra Lok, Kawardha and after marriage, the applicant No.1 went to her matrimonial house for performing matrimonial obligation, however the matrimonial family members teasing the applicant No.1 being ugly and also she was subjected by her in-laws with cruelty. Two girl child was born out of wedlock from applicant No. 1 and non-applicant elder child is applicant No. 2 and younger child is applicant No. 3 and both child are residing with their mother i.e. applicant No.1. Due to abovementioned behavior and cruel act of the non-applicant and his relatives towards the applicant No.1, in the month of August 2019, the applicant No. 1 along with her 2 children left her matrimonial house and shifted in her parental house at 3 Kawardha. It is further alleged that the non-applicant is a government assistant teacher and earning more than 50,000/- rupees and also having 50 dismal plot at Sakri main road, 20 acre irrigated agriculture land situated at village Hardi, Tahsil-Patharia, District- Mungeli whereby the non-applicant earning 10-11 lakh per year, 1.50 acre land at Sakri bypass road and 9 acre agriculture land situated in behind The Jain International School, Sakri, thereby non-applicant is earning sufÏcient amount, but he was not giving single penny towards maintenance of applicants. Therefore, the applicants were facing huge financial problem, the applicant No. 1 had to maintain her children apart from herself, it is noteworthy to mention that children are at very tender age and they need proper nutrition, clothing and health care. After facing abovementioned financial problem the applicant No.1 behalf on herself and for her children filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance herself and for both children. 4. The non-applicant filed his reply, whereby denied the averments of applicants and after that the learned Family Court concerned after due appreciation and the evidence available on record, heard both the parties, passed the impugned order dated 28.09.2022, whereby partly allowed the application filed by the applicants and it was directed the non-applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month each to the applicant Nos.2 and 3 and further rejected the application/maintenance claim filed by the applicant No.1. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant is teacher grade- 2 and earning more than 50,000/- rupees now and also having 50 4 dismal plot at Sakri main road, 20 acre irrigated agriculture land situated at village Hardi, Tahsil-Patharia, District Mungeli whereby the non-applicant earning 10-11 lakh per year, 1.50 acre land at Sakri bypass road and 9 acre agriculture land situated in behind the Jain International School, Sakri, thereby applicant No.2 earning sufÏcient amount, but he was not giving single penny towards maintenance of applicants. The learned Family Court illegally held that the wife is not entitle for maintenance amount since she is doing practice at a private nursing home as an assistant doctor and earn 25,000/- per month whereas it is well settled principle by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its many judgment that, wife is entitle for maintenance amount despite if she earning herself. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant No.2 and 3 are studying in a private school and they have many requirements for their study and their tuition fees and therefore amount of Rs. 4,000/-each is not sufÏcient towards maintenance of applicant Nos. 2 & 3 in present circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicants are entitled for the status and living standard according to living standard of non-applicant, being legally wedded wife and children. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the Family Court concerned 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 revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the concerned 5 Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month each to applicant Nos.2 and 3 and rejected the application of the applicant No.1 on the ground that the applicant No. 1, Sonal Sharma, has sufÏcient sources of income of her own, through which she is capable of maintaining herself even better than what she could have expected while living with her husband at her matrimonial home, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, the said amount granted in favour of applicant No.2 and 3, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 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/- Sd/- Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Kunal