Deenu Rajak S/o Late Mallari Rajak vs Pinki Rajak

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

I.A. No.1 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision of 28 days.

On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned.

By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:

“It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 28-02-2025 passed by the Court of learned Family Court Manendragarh, Camp Court Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) (Annexure A-1) in Misc. Criminal Case No.65/2024 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.”

Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants (hereinafter referred as wife & child) had pleaded inter-alia that the marriage of applicant and non-applicant No 1 performed in the year 2017 as per the caste, custom prevailing between the parties and after the marriage, they blessed with non-applicant No.2. It is alleged by the wife against the husband that soon after the marriage, she was ill-treated by the applicant and used to torture her but she continue remained with him under the impression that one day, the behavior of the applicant will change towards the wife and child and ultimately when the month of August-2020, when the wife became pregnant, she ousted by the applicant and since thereafter she is residing in the house of her father and mother and in the month of October-2020, she blessed with non-applicant No.2 at Shivani Nursing Home and the applicant is not maintaining them and the applicant is working as a labour at Katkona Colliery and used to earn sum of Rs.25,000/- per months, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court concerned, seeking maintenance a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month maintenance

The applicant/husband filed the reply and it was pleaded that the marriage of the wife was performed along with one Dilip and the applicant also obtained divorce from first wife and he is having son aged about 12 years, who used to resides along with the applicant and soon after the marriage, the father and mother of the wife used to come in their house and they used to provoke their daughter, on account of which the wife of applicant used to ill-treated the son of applicant and used to assault regularly and ultimately on her own will, she left the house on 20-08-2020 and number of times, the applicant went to brought the wife and child, but the wife is not coming on her own will and they pressurized the applicant to left the child.

On the basis of pleadings of the respective parties, the learned family Court framed 03 issues and after scrutinizing the evidence and material available on record, passed the order of maintenance to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month from the date of filing of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. i.e. 21-05-2024 in favour of non-applicants, hence this revision.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order impugned dated 28-02-2025 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, arbitrary, against the law and without considering the facts, evidences of the case. He further submits that the wife voluntarily left the house and despite of the affords made by the applicant, she was not willing to come, hence the order of maintenance passed in favour of wife is bad in law and the same is liable to be set-aside. The applicant categorically deposed in his deposition that the wife used to ill-treated his son Mayank and she used to pressurize the applicant to left his child. He also states that he went to brought to the applicant No.1 but she did not came back and the applicant also produced the documents which was executed Ex.P.1 and the version of applicant No.1 is duly supported by his son, so the order of maintenance which was passed in favour of wife is bad in law. He further submits that the applicant is a patient of Asthma who is not able to perform his duty regularly and he produced the salary certificate and the same is exhibited as NA-2. The non-applicant No.1 used to perform some kind of work in a school, so she is having sufficient source of earning, hence the order of maintenance, which was passed in favour of non-applicant No.1 is had in law and the same is liable to be set-aside.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision.

From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicants has succeeded in proving her application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, monthly income of the applicant, the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1500/- per month to the non-applicant No.2/son (Total 4000/-) as maintenance, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side.

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month to the non-applicants, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.