Madan Sahu vs Smt. Ghasan Bai
2021 Latest Caselaw 2796 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                         NAFR

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             CRR No. 81 of 2019

    Madan Sahu, S/o Gariba Sahu, aged about 52 Years, R/o Village
     Mulmula, Post Pendretarai, Tahsil and Police Station, Post Office
     - Sargoan, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                   ----Petitioner

                                  Versus

    Smt. Ghasan Bai, W/o Madal Lal Sahu, aged about 50 Years,
     Present R/o Village Bhanura, Post Beltara, Police Station
     Khamhariya, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate.

For Respondent      Shri R.K. Pali, Advocate.

                 Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya
                            Order on Board

20/10/2021

1. The present revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.

read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act has been

preferred against the order dated 22.12.2018 passed by the

Family Court, Bemetara, District Bemetara, C.G., in MJC

No.70/2017 whereby the Family Court while allowing the

application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has granted

maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month in her favour.

2. It is not in dispute that the respondent is the legally wedded wife

of the petitioner and out of their wedlock one son namely Dwarika

was born. According to the respondent, a few days after the

marriage the applicant started beating the respondent and

thereafter ousted her his house and brought another lady as his

wife, therefore, the respondent left her matrimonial home and

started residing at her parental home at village Dhanora. She

contended that the petitioner is not giving any maintenance to her

whereas he has 5-6 acres of agricultural land from which he is

earning Rs.3 lakhs yearly. Therefore, she prayed for grant of

maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the

petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial

Court has failed to appreciate that, for awarding the maintenance,

the wife is required to plead and prove that she has no sufficient

means to maintain herself and the husband is deliberately

avoiding his duty to maintain wife, but in the case in hand, the

respondent has neither pleaded nor deposed and proved that she

is not in a position to maintain herself and, therefore, the

impugned order is illegal and liable to be quashed. He submits

that respondent has admitted that for the last 25 years, she is

maintaining herself. Respondent has also admitted that she is

earning Rs.100/- per day from work, her son is providing her

financial help, she is getting Rs.350/- under the "Sukhad

Sahayata" and she is having pink card and hence she is getting

35 Kg rice per month which is sufficient for her livelihood and,

therefore, the impugned order is bad and erroneous. He further

submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that

the respondent has failed to prove the requirement of Section

125 of Cr.P.C.

Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai reported

in 2008 (3) CGLJ 473(SC).

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent

specifically stated that the petitioner is earning Rs.3 lakhs per

year from the agricultural land. He submits that petitioner has

also purchased some land for his second wife and as per the

financial status of the petitioner the Court below has rightly

awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- in favour of the

respondent.

5. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

admission of the petitioner that he has already performed

marriage with another lady, he has two children from his second

wife, the fact that the respondent is dependent upon some

Government Scheme and getting little help from his son, the

status of the petitioner, his income which has been proved by the

respondent and not controverted in the cross-examination, the

age of the respondent i.e. 50 years, the fact that the petitioner

has deserted the respondent without any reason and married

another woman, no strict rule of pleading is applicable in the

proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the judgment relied by

counsel for the petitioner is of no help to him, this Court is of the

opinion that the Court below has rightly passed the impugned

order which needs no interference by this Court.

7. Accordingly, the present revision petition being without any

substance is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Sd/-

Gautam Chourdiya Judge

Akhilesh