Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:41508 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1293 of 2024 1 - Urmila Banjare W/o Shri Nirmal Banjare, Aged About 42 Years R/o Manjhawapara, Pahare Gali, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Presently R/o C/o Shri Ramkhilawan Manhar, Living As A Tenant, Near The Pani Tank, Manharpara, Village And Post Bundela (Jhal), Police Station-Chakarbhatha, Tahsil-Bilha, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Navis Banjare S/o Shri Nirmal Banjare, Aged About 16 Years Being The Minor Through The Mother/as Guardian Applicant No. 01 Urmila Banjare, R/o Manjhawapara, Pahare Gali, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Presently R/o C/o Shri Ramkhilawan Manhar, Living As A Tenant, Near The Pani Tank, Manharpara, Village And Post Bundela (Jhal), Police Station-Chakarbhatha, Tahsil-Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) versus ... Applicants
Legal Reasoning
Nirmal Banjare S/o Late Shri Samaru Ram, Aged About 50 Years Posted As Peon In Education Department, R/o Pahare Gali, In Front Of Jait Stambh, Near The Raja Kirana Dukan, Manjhwapra, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line-Bilaspur, Tahsil And District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Aishwarya Kumar, Advocate RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 2 1. Heard Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, learned counsel the applicants. Also heard Mr. Aishwarya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the order dated 05/08/2024 Annexure-R/1 passed by Principal Judge Family Court Bilaspur has to be enhanced from the Rs.7000/- to Rs.50000/- per month for applicants wife and son from the date of application, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the Applicant No.1 and the Respondent was solemnized on 29.04.2002 as per Chudi Pratha, and from the wedlock a son, Navis Banjare, was born who is presently residing with the Applicant and is suffering from epilepsy and other serious ailments. It was alleged that in the year 2017 the Respondent brought one Saroj Tandon to his house and started living with her, and on the Applicant’s objection, subjected her and the son to cruelty, abuse and assault, eventually driving them out of the matrimonial home, compelling the Applicant to lodge a complaint at Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur. The Respondent is employed in the Education Department as a Peon, drawing a salary of about Rs.40,000–50,000 per month, and is also earning Rs.40,000–50,000 per month from rental income of his 12-room house situated at Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, whereas the Applicant is a housewife with no independent source of income. The Applicants, therefore, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming 3 Rs.50,000/- per month (Rs.30,000/- towards maintenance and Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses of the son). The Respondent, while admitting the marriage, the son, and his employment, denied the allegations of cruelty and stated that his net salary is only Rs.18,000/- after deductions, that he has to maintain four children from his first wife, repay loans of Rs.3,00,000/- taken for the marriage of his daughters, and further alleged that the Applicant herself earns Rs.10,000–15,000/- per month through tailoring and cooking work. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, after appreciating the pleadings, evidence, and material on record, by final order dated 05.08.2024 partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month in total, i.e., Rs.4,000/- to the wife and Rs.3,000/- to the son. Being aggrieved, the Applicants have preferred the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court, while determining the quantum of maintenance, has failed to appreciate the evidence and relevant aspects of the case in their true perspective. It is submitted that the applicant–wife and her minor son, who is suffering from multiple ailments including epilepsy, have no independent source of income and are entirely dependent on the respondent for survival, yet, despite specific pleadings and documentary proof, the learned Family Court has granted only a meagre sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rs.4,000/- to the wife and Rs.3,000/- to the son). It is further urged that the Respondent, who is employed as a Peon in the Education 4 Department and is receiving a regular monthly salary of about Rs.50,000/-, also owns a house at Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, consisting of 12 rental rooms fetching about Rs.48,000/- per month, apart from having agricultural land and other assets. The Applicants had placed on record the service book (Annexure P/1), pay slips (Exhibits P/2 and P/3), as well as medical treatment documents (Annexures P/4 to P/7) to establish their entitlement to maintenance, and also examined witnesses to prove that the marriage was duly solemnized under Chudi Pratha after the death of the Respondent’s first wife, during which period the Applicant not only took care of the Respondent’s four minor children from the first marriage but also bore a son, Applicant No. 2, out of the wedlock. It is contended that the Respondent’s defence that the Applicant is not his legally wedded wife and that she earns by doing tailoring and cooking work is baseless and unsupported by evidence, whereas the documents and oral testimony on record clearly prove that the Applicants are legally entitled to reside separately and claim maintenance, particularly since they were subjected to cruelty after the Respondent’s third relationship with one Saroj Tandon, leading to police complaints. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 passed in Misc. Crim. Case No. 421/2020 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, granting only Rs.7,000/- per month, is wholly inadequate, unjust, and contrary to the evidence on record, and the Applicants are legally entitled to an enhanced maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.30,000/- towards maintenance and Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses 5 of Applicant No. 2. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon proper appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly concluded that Applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent. It has been established that she has no independent source of income, and that she was compelled to live separately on account of the Respondent’s conduct, which constitutes just and valid grounds within the meaning of Section 125 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the direction of the learned Family Court awarding a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month towards the maintenance of Applicant No.1 is just, proper and based on sound appreciation of facts and law. 8. Considering the evidence available on record and the pleadings of the parties, the order passed by the learned Family Court with respect to applicant No.1/wife is just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. 9. So far as Applicant No.2, namely Navis Banjare, the minor son of the parties, is concerned, it is the settled position of law that the father is under a legal obligation to maintain his minor child. It is 6 further borne out from the record that Applicant No.2 is suffering from epilepsy and other serious ailments which require regular medical care and additional expenses. In these circumstances, the amount of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the learned Family Court towards his maintenance is found to be inadequate. Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.6,000/- per month. The Respondent shall pay the said enhanced maintenance to Applicant No.2 through his natural guardian, Urmila Banjare, in accordance with law. The said amount, as has been enhanced by this Court, shall be payable to applicant No.2 w.i.e. from 01.09.2025 in accordance with law. Thus, the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Misc. Cr. Case No.421/2020 stands afÏrmed in respect of Applicant No.1 and modified to the aforesaid extent in respect of Applicant No.2. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice