1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2016

•

Shivkumar Sahu son of Jitendra Bahadur Sahu, aged about 26 years,

resident of Village- Tendubhata, Matiya, District – Balodabazar (C.G.)

---- Applicant

Versus

•

Laxmi @ Aparna Sahu wife of Shivkumar Sahu, aged about 24 years,

resident of Village- Sonamani, Chhanna Dafai, Chirmiri, Chowki-Korea

Colliery, Police Station – Chirmiri, District Korea (C.G.)

---- Respondent/Non-Applicant

For Applicant

:

Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate

For Respondent/Non-Applicant :

Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

26.08.2022

1. The applicant/husband has filed this instant criminal revision under Section

19 (4) of the Family Courts Act read with Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C.

against the order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the learned Family Court,

Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 130/2014,

whereby, application moved by the non-applicant under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the applicant herein has been directed to pay

Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent/wife.

2. The contents of the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the non-

applicant are like that the parties were married in the year 2012 according to

Hindu Customs and after some time the applicant and his parents started

demanding dowry and making taunts. The social meeting was convened in

the year 2013 and thereafter, non-applicant/wife was ousted from the

matrimonial house. Non-applicant further pleaded that her husband is a

Doctor earning Rs.40,000/- per month from salary and Rs.5 lacs per annum

from agriculture. The non-applicant claimed Rs.25,000/- per month as

2

maintenance.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no means

of income, the amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court is

excessive and he has other liabilities. He further submits that non-applicant

is residing separately without sufficient cause, therefore, she is not entitled

for maintenance.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the

learned Family Court has allowed the application of wife after considering all

the aspects and she supported the order passed by the Family Court.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record with utmost circumspection.

6. The applicant herein filed reply and denied the contents of the application

moved by his wife. He specifically pleaded that his wife was never subjected

to cruelty, she was permitted to continue her study in Dr. C.V. Raman

University from where she completed her PGDCA Course. On 14.09.2013

the non-applicant was in her parents' house and the present applicant went

there to bring her alongwith him, however, she refused to come back. He

further pleaded that he has no agricultural land and he is posted on

contractual basis on the post of Rural Medical Assistant drawing Rs.8,000/-

per month as salary.

7. The non-applicant examined herself where she has repeated the statements

made in her application under Section 125 of Cr.P. Two more witnesses AW-

2 Raju Singh, who is neighbour of the non-applicant, and AW-3 Brijbhushan

Sahu, who is brother of the non-applicant, have been examined and they

have supported the case of the non-applicant. The applicant examined

himself as NAW-1 and gist of his evidence is that his wife is residing

separately without any sufficient cause. She was never subjected to cruelty

and social meeting was convened but wife and her parents never joined the

meeting. He further pleaded that his present salary is Rs.18,480/- per month

3

and at the time of marriage his salary was of Rs.8,000/-.

8. The learned Family Court after appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence framed two issues :

(01) whether the wife is residing separately without any

su