Chattisgarh High Court
Vikas Budek vs Smt. Dileshwari Budek on 20 February, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:8866
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 244 of 2025
1 - Vikas Budek S/o Late Balakram Budek Aged About 36 Years R/o Village-
Karchundi, Tahsil-Basna At Present Address Village- Turturiya, Post-Bafra, P.S. And
Tahsil-Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
1 - Smt. Dileshwari Budek W/o Vikas Budek Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 2,
Virendra Nagar, Saraipali, Tahsil-Saraipali, District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
2 - Kumari Pragya D/o Vikas Budek Aged About 9 Years Minor Represented Through
Mother Dileshwari Budek, R/o Ward No. 2, Virendra Nagar, Saraipali, Tahsil-Saraipali,
District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate
For Respondent(s) :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
20/02/2025
1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025, an application for condonation of
delay.
2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned therein,
I am inclined to allow I.A. No. 02/2025 and the delay of 106
days is hereby condoned.
3. The present Criminal Revision is filed by the applicant under
Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with
Section 438 and Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 against the
order dated 25.07.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.
53/2023 by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.)
whereby directed the applicant to pay Rs. 8000/- per month to
the non-applicants towards their maintenance.
4. Brief facts of the case is that the marriage of the applicant
and respondent was performed in the month of May, 2013
according to Hindu rites and rituals and after marriage, she
came in the house of applicant for performing matrimonial
obligations and out of their wedlock, the respondent no. 2
was born on 26.11.2014. During pregnancy the respondent
no. 1 went to her paternal house in March, 2014 thereafter
the applicant used to visit her at her paternal house, but later
after some dispute he stopped visiting respondent no. 1 and
the entire expenses of delivery and other medical expenditure
while respondent no. 2 was born was borne by the family
members of respondent no.1.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the learned
Family Court has failed to appreciate that the manner in
which maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.c. is to be
assessed, was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
its celebrated judgment in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & another
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. He also placed his reliance
upon the Aditi @ Mithi Vs. Jitesh Sharma in CRA No. 3446
of 2023 arising out of SLP (Cr.) No. 11954 of 2023.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused
the record with utmost circumspection.
7. Perusal of record shows that the applicant is working as a
Forest Guard and is earning Rs. 31,652/- per month. The
learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, Link Court
Saraipali (C.G.) vide its order dated 25.07.2024 has granted
maintenance of Rs. 4000/- to respondent no. 1 (wife) and Rs.
4000/- to respondent no. 2 (daughter), in total Rs. 8000/-.
8. It is crystal clear that respondent no. 1 is legally wedded wife
of the applicant and respondent no. 2 is minor daughter of the
applicant who is aged about 9 years who are unable to
maintain themselves.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aditi @ Mithi Vs. Jitesh
Sharma (supra) in para 13 has stated:
"13. A perusal of the order passed by the High
Court shows that the amount of maintenance
awarded to the appellant was reduced from Rs.
20,000/- to Rs. 7,500/- per month, merely
noticing that earlier, the respondent was in
business. However, at that point in time he was
in debt and in financial distress, hence, not able
to pay huge amount of maintenance to the minor
daughter. The respondent is not respondent is
not represented before this Court to justify the
stand taken by him before the High Court. The
Family Court had passed a detailed order giving
reasons."
10. So far as the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
is concerned, the husband was running a business and at that
point of time he was in debt and in financial distress, but in the
present case the applicant/husband is a government servant
working as a Forest Guard and is withdrawing a fixed salary of
Rs. 31,652/- per month, therefore, the facts of the case upon
which the counsel for the applicant is relying is totally different
from the facts of the present case.
11. The applicant/husband cannot be absolved from his liability
and responsibility to maintain his wife and daughter till she
attains the age of majority or till she remains unmarried or
unemployed. Whatever be the dispute between the husband
and the wife, a child should not be made to suffer. Since the wife
is unable to maintain herself and her daughter, therefore, a
reasonable/sufficient amount is required for the maintenance of
her daughter including her education, etc. which shall have to be
paid by the husband, irrespective of the decree of dissolution of
marriage.
12. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity
in the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Judge, Family
Court, Mahasamund in Misc. Criminal Case No. 53/2023.
13. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is dismissed on
merits.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
Madhurima
