Hitesh Kumar vs Durga Sahu

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel, appearing for the the applicant.

The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:

“It is therefore, that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the learned Family Court Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 332/2023 or awarded maintenance amount may be reduced, in the interest of justice.”

Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 25,000/-. It is stated that respondent No. 1 solemnized her marriage with the applicant on 25.06.2019 according to Hindu rites and rituals, and out of the wedlock, respondent No. 2 was born. After some time of marriage, the applicant and his family members started harassing and mentally torturing respondent No. 1 by demanding dowry, and the applicant also threatened his wife, Durga Sahu, with divorce. Consequently, she left her matrimonial home and is residing with her minor son, respondent No. 2, at her parental home. The applicant is running a tent house business and also works as a supplier, from which he earns around Rs. 10,000/- per month, and he also owns 1.50 acres of agricultural land. Respondent No. 1 has no source of income, and therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month.

After issuing notice to the applicant, the applicant filed a reply denying all the averments made in the application, as well as the claim for maintenance.

The learned Family Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, passed the order dated 12.09.2023, whereby it allowed the application of the respondent and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- per month (Rs. 2,500/- to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- to respondent No. 2). The impugned order dated 12.09.2023 is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned maintenance order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the respondent. He submits that the applicant has aged parents and other family members who are entirely dependent upon him, and hence, the impugned maintenance order is liable to be quashed. He further submits that the applicant has been paying an interim maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondents as per the interim maintenance order dated 21.06.2022. Therefore, he is not in a position to pay any additional maintenance amount, and hence, the impugned maintenance order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that after some time of marriage, respondent No. 1 used to stay at her matrimonial home only for a few days at a time and was not interested in residing with the applicant or maintaining marital relations. The applicant runs a small kirana shop, and his aged parents are entirely dependent upon the limited income from this shop. Hence, the applicant is not in a financial position to take care of the respondents, and therefore, the impugned maintenance order is liable to be set aside. The respondent No. 1 has failed to prove the income of the applicant and has not produced any document regarding his income. Therefore, the maintenance amount awarded at Rs. 4,500/-per month (Rs. 2,500/- for respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- for respondent No. 2) is liable to be set aside. He submits that the respondent No. 1 is a well-educated lady and was not interested in living with the applicant or maintaining marital life. Hence, the impugned maintenance order (Annexure A-1) is liable to be set aside. The respondent No. 1 left her matrimonial home without any sufficient reason and has not made any effort to return and reside with the applicant. It is pertinent to mention here that the maintenance amount awarded is on the higher side and is liable to be modified.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court.

Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition.

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