Hikeshwar Sahu S/o Santram Sahu Aged About 31 Years Caste- Teli. R/o Village- Chirpoti v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:41484 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1209 of 2024 Hikeshwar Sahu S/o Santram Sahu Aged About 31 Years Caste- Teli. R/o Village- Chirpoti, P.S. and District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Dipeshwari W/o Hikeshwar Sahu Aged About 31 Years Caste Teli, R/o And Post- Baghmara, P.S. Balod, Tahsil and District- Balod ( C.G.). 2. Ku. Depeshwari W/o Hikeshwar Sahu, Aged About 2 Years Minor
Legal Reasoning
Through- Her Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Dipeshwari, W/o. Hikeshwar Sahu, Caste Teli, R/o asnd Post- Baghmara, P.S. Balod, Tahsil and District- Balod ( C.G.). ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18.08.2025 Order on Board 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balod, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.309/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondents filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.20 10:50:21 +0530 2 and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.2. 2. The brief facts of the case is that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the Applicant, and their marriage was solemnized on 01.07.2021 at Village Baghmara, District Palod. respondent No. 2 is their minor daughter and currently resides with respondent No. 1. Due to constant ill-treatment and harassment by respondent No. 1, she left the Applicant without any valid reason on 09.01.2022 and has been residing with her parents ever since. Despite the Applicant’s repeated efforts and requests, the Respondents have refused to return. The respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Balod (C.G.), seeking maintenance of Rs. 30,000 per month for respondent No. 1 and Rs. 20,000 for Respondent No. 2, alleging the Applicant owns a hotel, a grocery store, and agricultural equipment, with an annual income of Rs.22,20,000. The case was registered as Misc. Cr. Case No. 309/2022. An interim maintenance application was also filed, seeking Rs.40,000 per month. The Applicant filed replies to both applications, denying ownership of any agricultural land, harvesters, or tractors. He stated he runs a small tea stall (chai-thela), earning only Rs.200 per day, and has taken a loan of Rs.1.7 lakhs for the same. He reiterated his efforts to reconcile with the Respondents. By order dated 27.10.2023, the Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,500 to Respondent No. 1 and Rs.1,000 to Respondent No. 2 (total Rs.2,500/month). However, by final order dated 25.10.2024, the Court allowed the maintenance application 3 and directed the Applicant to pay Rs.10,000 to Respondent No. 1 and Rs.5,000 to Respondent No. 2 per month. Respondent No. 1 also lodged a complaint with Mahila Thana, Balod, and during counseling, submitted an application dated 17.10.2022, clearly refusing to reside with the Applicant. 4. The Applicant had also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, registered as Civil Case No. 100-A/2023. Respondent No. 1 refused to cohabit, and the case was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.01.2024. The case was originally filed in Family Court, Durg, but later transferred to Balod on the direction of the Hon’ble High Court. Since Respondent No. 1 has categorically refused to live with the Applicant, he has filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, which is currently pending. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order and findings of the learned Family Court are contrary to law, facts, and the evidence on record, and therefore deserve to be set aside. The learned Family Court erred in concluding that the applicant earns income from harvesters, tractors, and agricultural land. These findings are unsupported by evidence, as the applicant had specifically denied these claims, and the respondents failed to produce any documentary proof. The findings regarding the applicant’s income are baseless and unsustainable, being contrary to the applicant’s evidence, which clearly demonstrated limited earnings. There is an unjustified and disproportionate increase in maintenance, from Rs.2,500 per month 4 (interim maintenance) to Rs.15,000 per month in the final order. Respondent No. 1, in her application dated 17.10.2022 submitted during counseling at Mahila Thana, Balod, clearly refused to reside with the Applicant. The learned Family Court failed to consider the Applicant’s pleadings, wherein he denied ownership of any agricultural land, harvesters, or tractors, and stated that he runs a small tea stall (chai-thela), earning merely Rs.200 per day. He also submitted that he had taken a bank loan of Rs.1.7 lakhs for the
Decision
same. The impugned order is erroneous and contrary to the legal provisions and evidence on record. The award of Rs.10,000 to Respondent No. 1 and Rs.5,000 to Respondent No. 2 (totaling Rs.15,000 per month) as maintenance is excessive and unjustified, and therefore may kindly be set aside in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that from the evidence presented on behalf of the respondents, it is found that the applicant, despite being financially capable, has neglected to provide maintenance to his wife, respondent No. 1, and his minor daughter, respondent No. 2, while the respondents are unable to maintain themselves. Therefore, being the husband of respondent 5 No. 1 and the father of respondent No. 2, it is the legal and moral responsibility of the applicant to provide maintenance to the applicants in accordance with his financial capacity. Hence, the respondents are entitled to receive maintenance from the applicant. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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. Chief Justice Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Preeti