Kamlesh vs Smt. Revati Bai
2022 Latest Caselaw 6609 Chatt

                                                           Page 1 of 3


                                                                 NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        CRR No. 303 of 2019

    Kamlesh, S/o Shri Raghunath Verma, Aged About 25 Years,
     Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Salauni, Post Dara, Tahsil Khairagarh,
     Civil and Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

                                                        ---- Applicant

                             Versus

  1.

Smt. Revati Bai, W/o Shri Kamlesh Verma, Aged About 21 Years,

2. Ku. Lalli, D/o Shri Kamlesh Verma, Aged About 3 Years, Minor Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Revti Bai Caste Lodhi,

Both are R/o Village Salauni, Post Dara, Tahsil Khairagarh, Civil and Revenue District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

At Present R/o Ward No. 1, Chhuikhadan, Tahsil and Post Chhuikhadan, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattigarh. ---- Non-Applicants

For Applicant : Shri Vishvanath Shrivash, Advocate

For Non-Applicants : Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.11.2022

1) This revision is filed against the order dated 13.12.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, Link Court Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 28/2017, whereby an application moved by the non-applicants/ wife & daughter under Section 125 of CrPC, has partly been allowed and they have been awarded Rs. 1,000-1,000/- as maintenance.

2) The non-applicant filed application under Section 125 of CrPC inter-alia on the ground that in the year 2013, the marriage was solemnized between applicant and non-applicant No.1, after sometime the applicant/husband started harassing non-applicant No.1 and she was subjected to cruelty. It is further stated that

she was confined in a room and thereafter in the month of February 2017, she was ousted from matrimonial house. She further pleaded that her husband is working as mason and he is earning Rs. 500/- per day and in his name 7 acres of agricultural land is recorded, thus she claimed maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- for herself and Rs. 3,000/- for her daughter.

3) The applicant/husband herein filed reply to the application and denied its contents. The learned Family Court framed following issue:-

"1. Whether the applicant No.1 is separated from his spouse for sufficient reason?

unable to maintain themselves?

3.Whether the non-applicant refusing to maintain the applicants while having sufficient means or adequate source of income?

4.If so, then the applicants are entitled to receive the amount of maintenance from the non-applicant on monthly basis."

and vide judgment dated 13.12.2018 it is held that undisputedly the non-applicant No.1 herein is wife of the applicant and non-applicant No.2 is their daughter they were married in the year 2013. The learned Family Court further held that the husband is under obligation to maintain his wife and daughter and it is also held that the non-applicants herein are being neglected by the applicant. The learned Family Court awarded Rs. 1,000-1,000/- to the non-applicants.

4) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is laborour, he has no primary source of income, he has filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the non-applicant No.1 is residing separately without any sufficient reason, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance.

5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants submits that the non-applicant No.1 has assigned sufficient reason in her evidence and in the application filed under Section 125 of the CrPC for residing separately, she has liability of her daughter, she has no means of income, whereas non-applicants/ husband is working as mason and earning Rs. 500/- per day, in his name 7 acres of agricultural land is recorded. He further submits that learned Family Court has rightly allowed the application moved by them.

6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7) From record, it appears that under application 125 of CrPC, moved by the wife/non-applicant No.1 on 09.05.2017, reply was filed by the applicant/husband on 08.11.2017, thereafter, issues were framed and the evidence of the parties were recorded, wherein the non-applicant No.1/wife repeated the contents of the application. AW-2 Chamru Verma, AW-3 Revti Bai, were examined by the wife, who have supported the case of the non- applicant No.1/wife, whereas applicant/husband has examined NAW/1 Karan Verma, Makund Ram NAW/2 and himself as NAW/3. Learned Family Court after appreciating the entire documentary as well as oral evidence allowed the application and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Family Court, further mere filing an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, is not bar to grant maintenance. Considering the above aspect, this revision is devoid of merits and it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim