Pappu Pasi S/o Shri Sugan Lal Pasi Aged About 35 Years R/o House No v. Smt. Jyoti Pasi W/o Pappu Pasi Aged About 30 Years R/o MIG-120, Sector
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:41473 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1275 of 2024 Pappu Pasi S/o Shri Sugan Lal Pasi Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 930, Jungle Side, Banki Mogra, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Office Address- Punjab National Bank, Branch Jharsguda, Marwadipara, Jharsguda, Odisha, Pin No. 768201. ... Applicant versus Smt. Jyoti Pasi W/o Pappu Pasi Aged About 30 Years R/o MIG-120, Sector - 2, D.D. Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Vivek Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.20 10:50:21 +0530 18.08.2025 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District - Raipur (C.G.) in M.C.C Case No.93/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of application i.e. 18.01.2019. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent/wife filed an 2 application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging that her marriage with the present applicant was solemnized on 01.02.2016 at the applicant’s residence in the presence of both families. On the very day of the marriage, a demand for dowry—either a car or Rs.5,00,000—was allegedly made by the applicant and his family. When the respondent's family expressed their inability to fulfill the demand, the applicant's family became agitated and created a scene, although the situation was momentarily calmed. It is further alleged that in March 2016, the respondent began living with the applicant at his place of posting, where she was regularly harassed for not bringing sufficient dowry. On 11.06.2016, she claims the applicant agreed to take her to the matrimonial home only on the condition that she return with either the dowry amount or a car. He allegedly abandoned her at the railway station, from where her parents brought her back. On 25.06.2016, the respondent, along with her parents, returned to the matrimonial home, but again dowry demands were raised and her parents were mistreated and asked to take her back. Since then, the respondent has been living separately at her parental home. She filed complaints against the applicant and his family. On 11.08.2018, the applicant allegedly visited her and stated that he had been promoted to the post of Auditor with a salary of Rs.70,000–Rs.80,000 per month and demanded a car befitting his new status. Following this, the respondent lodged a complaint at the women's police station. In her maintenance application, she claimed Rs.50,000 per month, 3 estimating the applicant’s annual income to be around Rs.10,00,000. 3. The applicant-husband filed a reply denying all allegations and stated that the respondent's family had pressured him to purchase household items such as a sofa, bed, LED TV, refrigerator, and washing machine, for which he took a personal loan. He claimed that the respondent used to reside with him at his place of posting and only stayed at the matrimonial home during vacations. After his transfer from Jagdalpur to Jharsuguda (Odisha), the respondent allegedly refused to accompany him and instead moved to Raipur with her parents to prepare for the PSC examination. When the applicant attempted to bring her back, she refused. Consequently, he filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Korba (C.G.). He maintained that the respondent is residing separately without sufficient cause and that he has a personal loan with a monthly deduction of Rs.15,000. Therefore, he contended that the maintenance application should be dismissed. 4. Both parties led evidence and submitted documents. After considering the material on record, the learned Family Court concluded that the applicant is liable to pay Rs.15,000 per month as maintenance from the date of the application, i.e., 18.01.2019. The
Decision
applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record, and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the 4 impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to appreciate that the respondent wife is residing separately without any sufficient reason and is taking undue advantage of the legal provisions, amounting to misuse of the law. It is further submitted that the Family Court did not properly consider the averments in the maintenance application or the evidence presented by the respondent. A bare reading of the application shows that no specific or substantial reasons have been provided to justify her living separately. The Court also overlooked key contradictions in the respondent's testimony. In her examination- in-chief, she stated that the applicant left her stranded at the railway station, from where her parents picked her up. However, during cross-examination, she admitted that the applicant accompanied her to her parental home. This contradiction casts serious doubt on the credibility of her claims. Additionally, she acknowledged during her evidence that on 11.08.2018, the applicant attempted to bring her back, but she refused. This incident was videographed and submitted as evidence. These facts clearly establish that the respondent is voluntarily living separately without sufficient cause. 6. Furthermore, the respondent admitted during the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, instituted by the applicant at Family Court, Korba, that she had refused to return to her matrimonial home. This admission further confirms that she is living apart without any justified reason—an essential requirement for claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In order to be 5 entitled to maintenance, a wife must prove two things: first, that she is living separately for a justifiable reason, and second, that the husband is neglecting or refusing to maintain her. In the present case, the respondent has failed to establish the first requirement. The respondent has also admitted that the applicant has been regularly paying her interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month since the date of the court’s order. Despite this, the Family Court has arbitrarily enhanced the maintenance to Rs.15,000/- per month, effective from the date of the application, without due consideration of the facts. 7. He further submits that the Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is willing and ready to cohabit with his wife and, to that end, has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Yet, this willingness has been completely disregarded in awarding maintenance in favour of the respondent. Moreover, the applicant has taken a personal loan, and a substantial portion of his salary is deducted monthly towards EMI payments. In the case of “Bhusan Kumar Meen v. Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur”, Criminal Appeal No. 879/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that loan deductions from the husband's salary must be taken into account when determining the quantum of maintenance. Maintenance is a responsibility, not a punishment. Therefore, an excessive or unreasonable amount should not be imposed on the husband under the guise of maintenance. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and 6 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. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 730/2020, Rajnesh vs. Neha & Others, vide order dated 04.11.2020, the affidavit submitted by the respondent/wife discloses her educational and professional qualification as Engineering (I.T.), while in the affidavit submitted by the applicant/husband, he has stated his educational qualification as Postgraduate (M.C.A.) and his profession as banking service. As per the income details, his employer is Punjab National Bank, Sambalpur, Odisha, holding the position of Auditor, with a monthly salary of Rs. 64,657/-. Based on the evidence, examination, and analysis, it is evident that the respondent has sufficient income and is capable of maintaining the applicant. Further, respondent Smt. Jyoti Pasi is the wife of the applicant, and the responsibility for her maintenance lies upon the applicant. Considering all facts, circumstances, and the expenses required for maintenance, it is deemed appropriate that the respondent should pay Rs. 15,000/- month as maintenance to the applicant, and the applicant is financially capable of paying this amount. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7 11. 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. 12. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. 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