Dildar Das S/o Dilip Das Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Dhaurabhata, Tahsil- Devkar v. 1. Dashrit Bai W/o Dildar Das Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1260 of 2024 Dildar Das S/o Dilip Das Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Dhaurabhata, Tahsil- Devkar, District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus 1. Dashrit Bai W/o Dildar Das Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Bhathapara, Village- Jano, Tahsil- Devkar, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, 2. Ku. Renuka D/o Dildar Das Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Their
Legal Reasoning
Natural Guardian I.E. Mother Namely Dashrit Bai W/o Dildar Das, R/o Ward No. 1, Bhathapara, Village- Jano, Tahsil- Devkar, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.29 10:47:33 +0530 3. Ku. Neha D/o Dildar Das Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian I.E. Mother Namely Dashrit Bai W/o Dildar Das, R/o Ward No. 1, Bhathapara, Village- Jano, Tahsil- Devkar, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4. Nilesh Kumar S/o Dildar Das Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian I.E. Mother Namely Dashrit Bai W/o Dildar Das, R/o Ward No. 1, Bhathapara, Village- Jano, Tahsil- Devkar, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.07.2025 Order on Board 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 06.07.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara (C.G.) in Cr. MJC No. 342/2023, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month (Rs. 1,000/- each) as maintenance to the respondents. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized 21 years ago, and out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with three children. It is submitted that the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that, until 2018, the relationship between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was cordial. However, in 2018, the applicant came into contact with one Ms. Bharti Sahu and allegedly developed an illicit relationship with her. Due to this, the relationship between the applicant and respondent No. 1 became strained. During this period, he borrowed >60,000/- from his father for the construction of a house. However, in 2022, after the house was completed, the applicant again began mistreating respondent No. 1 and left the house once more. It is further alleged that the applicant is a contractor owning two mixture machines and a Bolero pick-up vehicle, and earns approximately >70,000/- per month. Respondent No. 1 has no source of income and therefore sought >10,000/- per month as maintenance for herself, and >5,000/- each for respondents No. 2 to 4, totaling >25,000/- per month. 3. It is submitted that the applicant filed a reply to the said application, 3 denying all the allegations. He asserted that he has no relationship with Bharti Sahu and, instead, alleged that respondent No. 1 is involved in an illicit relationship with one Mr. Piyush Sahu. He further submitted that due to respondent No. 1's behavior, he had to leave his own house, which includes a grocery shop and a flour mill. It was stated that the respondents are residing with the applicant's father, have access to the grocery shop and flour mill, and possess a BPL ration card through which they receive rice and other essential commodities. Hence, they are not in need of maintenance. He also contended that his monthly income is only >12,000–13,000, and since respondent No. 1 is living in adultery, she is not entitled to maintenance. It is submitted that the learned trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 06.07.2024, held that respondent No. 1 is unable to maintain herself and that the applicant has sufficient means. The Court also found that the applicant was in an illicit relationship with another woman, which gave sufficient reason for respondent No. 1 to live separately. Accordingly, the trial Court awarded maintenance of >1,000/- per month to each of the respondents, totaling >4,000/- per month. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the judgment and findings of the learned trial Court are erroneous both in law and in fact, and therefore liable to be set aside. The learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence available on record in their correct perspective. It overlooked the fact that the applicant is living separately from respondent No. 1 and the children solely due to her misconduct, as evident from the records. Hence, the application for maintenance should have been dismissed. The trial Court has wrongly held that respondent No. 1 had sufficient grounds to live separately. In her own deposition, respondent No. 1 admitted that during the night, while 4 she had gone to attend nature’s call, one Mr. Piyush Sahu — a resident of another village — was also present. This admission casts doubt on her character, yet the learned court failed to consider its implications. The applicant has consistently maintained that respondent No. 1 has an illicit relationship with Mr. Piyush Sahu, and while such a claim may be denied by her, a proper appreciation of her deposition would have led to a different conclusion. The impugned order is therefore flawed. Furthermore, the respondents are residing in the applicant’s house which includes a grocery shop and flour mill. It is admitted that respondent No. 1 and her father-in-law operate the shop and mill. Additionally, the respondent herself deposed that AW-2 Dilip gave >60,000 to the applicant for house construction, which demonstrates that the applicant did not have sufficient financial means of his own. Despite this, the learned trial Court wrongly assessed his income on the higher side. Consequently, the maintenance awarded is excessive and not supported by facts or
Decision
evidence. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 06.07.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara (C.G.) in Cr. MJC No. 342/2023, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month (Rs. 1,000/- each) as maintenance to the respondents, and she further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 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. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice 6. 7. 8. 9. Preeti