Tilotma Sahu vs Sanjay Sahu

Ramesh Sinha, J

Heard Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.

The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 28.06.2017 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.142/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant.

Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant (wife) married the respondent (husband) in 2003 as per Hindu Marriage Act and had two children and from their wedlock son, Aman Kumar and daughter, Ku. Bharti were born and they were residing with respondent. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court, seeking maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month from her husband/applicant. She alleged that her husband doubted her character, beat her, and ousted her from the house. Since 26.03.2016, she has been living separately, and her husband hasn't provided any maintenance despite having sufficient means.

The applicant (wife) claimed that her husband (respondent) has a significant income from running fancy stores and a photocopy machine, earning Rs. 20,000 per month and owning 10 acres of agricultural land, earning Rs. 3,00,000 per annum. Based on this, she prayed for maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month from her husband. The husband (respondent) responded to the maintenance application and denying the allegations made by the wife, alleging that the wife had an illicit relationship with one Sunil @ Jahgru for 1.5 years, claiming he saw them together on March 26, 2016, informed her parents, and lodged a police report, seeking dismissal of the maintenance application, citing Section 125(4) of the CrPC, which states that a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she lives in adultery.

Thereafter, the applicant produce oral as well as documentary evidence in support of her case and she also produce the evidence to establish the fact that she is residing separately due to harassment caused by the respondent and it is proved that the applicant having reasons to resides separately but trial Court has recorded the finding that she was found in illicit relation therefore the document NA-1 and NA-2 has been written, therefore she is not entitled for any amount under the maintenance from the non-applicant and dismissed the application, hence the present revision.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since 26.03.2016, she is residing separately as the respondent ousted her from the house and she did not have any source of income to maintain herself, further there is no material evidence on record to prove the adultery, therefore, rejection of the application is not in accordance with law. He further submits that the applicant has clearly proved the marriage and also proved that respondent is having sufficient means to maintain her, which she legally entitled, but the trial Court has not considered properly. He also submits that the learned family Court has failed to consider the fact that the applicant not resides with respondent, due to the harassment caused by husband and there is sufficient reason to resides separately, merely not lodging of the report is not proper ground to draw the adverse effect as the applicant has not lodged the report just after the incident as she is thinking that the report will affect her marital life.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for.

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

From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that, the applicant (wife) has failed to prove that she has no sufficient means to live separately from her husband (respondent). On the contrary, the applicant was found to be living in adultery and by considering these facts, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the applicant is not

entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

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