Order on Board

28-7-2021

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant against the order dated 30-7-2019 passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur in Misc. Cr. Case No. 562/2018 whereby the Family Court has dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ( in short 'Cr.P.C.').

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant filed an application before the Family Court for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. mentioning that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 1993 but they have no issue. The respondent/ husband was not providing her other facilities except meal and he used to torture her mentally. He was also not caring for her routine expenditure, medicines, etc., instead, he always gave his whole salary to his brother and nephew. Since behavior of the respondent/husband was not good with her, therefore, his other relatives also used to torture her physically and mentally. The brother of the applicant/ wife persuaded the respondent/husband and his relatives to behave in a good manner with the applicant, despite that, they did not change their behavior. Therefore, the applicant is living with her brother. She has no means of her livelihood whereas the respondent/husband is clerk at the Government Jajlya Dev College, Janjgir and is earning salary Rs. 40,000/- per month. Therefore, she made prayer to grant Rs. 15,000/- per month for her maintenance from the respondent/husband.

3. The respondent/husband denied the allegations pertaining to maltreatment / misbehavior by them against the applicant. He has pleaded in his reply that the applicant herself is not interested to live with him because he is physically 80% disabled person and she is not interested to take his care and to provide him necessary support looking to his disability. The applicant was living with him happily but when disability of the respondent increased and he became disabled to do his routine work, then, the applicant disliked him and also started avoiding his care. She herself left his house on 11-6-2018 with her brother. By doing stitching work, she earns Rs. 7 to 8 thousand per month, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance amount from the respondent.

4. Learned Family Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, vide order dated 30-7-2019 dismissed the application of the applicant holding that she herself is living separately from the respondent without any sufficient reason because he is ready to keep her with him but she herself is not ready to live with him.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse and erroneous because it is not in dispute that the applicant is legally wedded wife of the respondent and interim maintenance amount was granted by learned trial Court pendente lite, because due to torture made by the respondent and his relatives, the applicant was compelled to leave her matrimonial house. The applicant is not having any source of income and she is dependent on her brother, whereas the respondent is a government servant getting Rs. 40,000/- per month as salary. Despite that, she has been denied maintenance amount by the learned Family Court. Hence, in the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Court below is erroneous, perverse and liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband supporting the impugned order submits that the trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order because the applicant herself did not want to live with the respondent/husband.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. The applicant has examined herself as Witness No. 1. Except herself, no other witness has been produced by her.

9. Applicant Smt. Surekha Sahu has state