Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Josna Chouhan W
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:29198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1482 of 2019 Chandramani Chouhan S/o Shri Tilsai Chouhan Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Beldih Pathar, Police Station and Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Josna Chouhan W/o Chandramani Chouhan Aged About 22 Years Presently R/o - Village Kayatpali House of Bhojraj Ranbida , Police Station and Tahsil Basna , District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondent : None. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.02 10:40:15 +0530 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30.06.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of respondent to press this criminal revision when the matter is called for hearing today. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the 2 following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed this criminal revision and the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, Camp Court, Saraipali, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) dated 16/08/2019 may kindly be quashed and further may kindly be pleased to discharge the applicant from maintenance amount which is awarded against him in the interest of justice. This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass any other order or relief in favour of the present applicant as it deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of Justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case that the applicant and the respondent are governed by Hindu Law, and their marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and rituals on 28.04.2017. Thereafter, they were living together and enjoying their married life. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., along with an interim application seeking maintenance for herself. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 48/2018, and by order dated 16.08.2019, the learned Family Court allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month against the applicant. 5. In her application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the respondent 3 contended that after the marriage, although the applicant initially treated her well, she was later harassed and ill-treated on account of the applicant keeping another woman in his house and for dowry demands. The respondent further alleged that due to cruelty, she left her matrimonial home, and despite her willingness, the applicant never came to take her back, and she has been residing at her parental home to date. The respondent also contended that she has no independent source of income and is completely dependent on others for her livelihood, whereas the applicant, who is engaged in contractual work, earns Rs. 15,000/- per month. On these grounds, the respondent prayed for a maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 6. The applicant filed a reply to the respondent’s application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., denying all the allegations made by the respondent. It was stated that the applicant never harassed or ill- treated the respondent on account of keeping another woman or for dowry. It was further stated that the respondent left the matrimonial home of her own will and is residing with her parents without any sufÏcient or cogent reason, despite the applicant making several efforts to bring her back. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance, and her application deserved to be rejected on the ground that she is residing separately without sufÏcient cause. 7. The learned Family Court recorded the contentions of both parties and, after considering and appreciating the submissions and evidence on record, passed the impugned order against the applicant. The applicant submits that the respondent is residing 4 separately without any sufÏcient or cogent reason, and despite the applicant’s continuous efforts to bring her back, she has refused to reside with him. The applicant also produced sufÏcient evidence to prove that the respondent is residing separately without reasonable cause, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Despite the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, the learned Family Court allowed the respondent’s application for maintenance and awarded Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent, rejecting the applicant’s submissions. The said order is illegal, perverse, and has been passed without proper application of mind. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad, illegal, perverse, and contrary to law, and is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record. The learned Family Court has allowed the application for maintenance filed by the respondent against the applicant and has awarded Rs. 3,000/-, which is neither justified nor reasonable, as the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant, which is an admitted fact of
Decision
the case. In view of the above, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance from the applicant, and the learned Family Court failed to consider this important aspect of the case. The impugned order of the learned Family Court is based upon wrong presumptions and inferences, which is bad in law, particularly in the present situation of the applicant, as the respondent left the house of the applicant of her own will. The learned Family Court failed to consider this 5 important aspect of the case. She submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant denied all the allegations and contentions raised by the respondent in her application, and on this ground alone, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. The order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal and deserves to be set aside on this ground. She further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is capable of maintaining herself through her earnings from labor work, due to which she does not deserve to receive the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- from the applicant. The learned Family Court failed to consider this important aspect of the case. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent is having an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law (Jeeja), due to which she is not entitled to any maintenance from the applicant. The maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- awarded to the respondent is excessive, unjustified, and unreasonable in the present circumstances of the case. She also submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the correct factual position of the case, despite sufÏcient evidence, statements, and documents on record to establish that the applicant is not capable of paying the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the 6 respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek