Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36130 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 51 of 2023 Dhaneshwar Nishad S/o Shri Gangdev Nishad Aged About 28 Years AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN R/o Village Silodha (Khapri), Post Rasmada Police Out Post Anjora, P. S. Pulgoan, District Durg Chhattisgarh versus ... Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Poornima Nishad W/o Dhaneshwar Nishad Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Ganesh Temple, Luchki Para, Ward No. 7, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Arpita Nishad D/o Dhaneshwar Nisad Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Her Mother Non Applicant No. 1 Smt. Poornima Nishad, R/o Near Ganesh Temple, Luchki Para, Ward No. 7, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. 2 Criminal Case No.1273/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage of respondent No. 1 took place with the applicant on April 23, 2013, as per Hindu customs and rituals, at Luchhki Para, Durg. From this marital life, a daughter, Arpita Nishad, aged 3 years, was born. On the night of the marriage, during the Bidai ceremony at around 11 PM, the applicant, his mother, father, and other relatives started quarreling and demanding dowry. Even after the marriage, they continued to demand dowry, and the respondent No.1 was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, including being beaten, not given food, thrown out of the house, and attempts to harm the unborn child. The respondent No.1’s mother-in-law would often taunt her about dowry and insult her and her family members, calling them beggars. The respondent No.1 was not provided with food for several days, and her mother- in-law would hide the food. The respondent No.1’s grandmother would occasionally visit and provide some food grains. Due to the lack of resources, the respondent No.1 had to beg for food from neighbors to sustain herself. The respondent No.1’s mother-in-law would often complain to her son about the respondent No.1, which would lead to her husband returning home drunk and 3 beating her. The respondent No.1’s husband and mother-in-law repeatedly demanded dowry, beat her, and threw her out of the house. In 2014, when the respondent No.1 was pregnant, her husband and mother-in-law forced her to eat raw peanuts, which caused her severe stomach pain and discomfort. Despite her condition worsening, they continued to force her to eat, leading to a miscarriage. 3. On April 28, 2014, the respondent No.1 took the applicant to his sister's place, where she delivered an incomplete fetus, which was then disposed of by the applicant and his mother. The respondent No.1 reported the dowry demands and physical abuse to the Women's Police Station on February 29, 2016, but the matter was settled after counseling. However, on March 28, 2016, the respondent assaulted the applicant, forcing her to sign a compromise agreement. In 2018, the applicant discovered that her husband had contracted a second marriage with another woman, Madhuri Nishad, without divorcing her. The respondent No.1 is currently unemployed and has no source of income to support herself and her daughter. The applicant earns a monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/- from his job at a factory and has additional income from agriculture and other sources, totaling an annual income of approximately Rs. 5,00,000. The respondents have requested a monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000 (Rs. 5,000 each for the applicant and her daughter) from the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply denied the allegations alleged by the 4 respondents. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court should have considered the fact that the wife was not subjected to cruelty on any account and she is living separately of her own will. He further failed to consider the fact that the wife was not driven out of her matrimonial house but she is unwilling to stay with the husband. He further submits that the Family Court should have considered the fact that the husband is not earning a sufficient amount, he does not have any property, and he is unable to maintain himself. Further, husband is willing to reside with the wife, but the wife is not willing to live with the husband. He also submits that the Family Court should have considered the fact that the husband is not in a position to pay maintenance as awarded by the court below, further the income of the applicant was not proved, and as such, he cannot be directed to pay the maintenance amount. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 5. 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 5 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing the respondent’s evidence suggesting that the applicant and his family members used to harass her, and that the applicant has contracted a second marriage, has not been rebutted by the applicant. On the contrary, the applicant has himself admitted that he has contracted a second marriage without divorcing the respondent No.1. In such circumstances, it stands proved that respondent No. 1 is residing separately along with her daughter, respondent No. 2, and they have sufficient and justifiable grounds to live separately from the applicant, and the applicant is neglecting and refusing to maintain the respondents. Further analyzing the social and economical status of both the parties, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled to maintenance. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the 6 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil