Rashmi Singh Chouhan vs Kumari Divyanshi

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10.01.2024 passed by learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.528/2022, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.2, towards maintenance.

Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage of applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 28.05.2019 at Kumhari, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) as per Hindu marriage customs and rites. After marriage, applicant No. 1 started residing with her husband (respondent) at her matrimonial home situated at Village Andi, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). From their wedlock, a female child, applicant No. 2, was born on 07.08.2020 at Government Hospital, Durg (Chhattisgarh). Thereafter, the respondent and his family members started demanding dowry from applicant No. 1 and her family, alleging that she had not brought sufficient household articles. Despite the respondent being in service, he and his family members subjected applicant No. 1 to cruelty by physically assaulting her and mentally harassing her. During her pregnancy, she was sent to her parental home for delivery, and after the birth of the female child, the respondent and his family members refused to accept the newborn baby. They continued their cruel behaviour and used abusive language against her. The respondent never came to take the applicants back to the matrimonial home and ultimately denied to keep them with him. Consequently, the applicants have been residing at District Durg (Chhattisgarh) since 07.08.2020. Thereafter, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (Chhattisgarh), seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the respondent. The entire incident was narrated on affidavit. The respondent filed his reply, admitting certain averments and denying others. He also cross-examined Revisionist No. 1 but failed to derive any benefit therefrom. Revisionist No. 1 duly supported her case by her evidence. However, the Learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, did not properly appreciate the evidence and documents placed on record by both parties and rejected the application of applicant No. 1 on the ground that she failed to establish sufficient cause for living separately. The learned Court, however, partly allowed the application of applicant No. 2 and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to her, by order dated 10.01.2024. A certified copy of the same is annexed herewith as Annexure A-1. Hence, the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the findings of the learned Family Court are perverse, illegal, and contrary to the facts, evidence, and settled principles of law. The Court failed to consider that applicant No. 1 had made a complaint to the police against the respondent and his family members regarding the demand of dowry and cruelty, which itself constitutes a sufficient cause for her to live separately. However, the Court erroneously held that no such complaint was made, thereby committing a legal mistake. He further submits that the applicant No. 1 had also deposed that the respondent used to assault her under the influence of liquor and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, which clearly establishes her entitlement to maintenance. Despite this, her application was rejected on erroneous grounds. Further, the maintenance of only Rs. 3,000/- per month awarded to applicant No. 2 is inadequate considering the respondent’s income and the rising cost of living, hence, it deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- per month. He also submits that the Court has also erred in directing payment of maintenance from the date of the order instead of the date of application and in merging the interim award with the final order, which is contrary to law.

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

From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent / husband to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.2 as monthly maintenance observing that, it is an admitted fact that applicant No.1 is the wife of the respondent and applicant No.2 is their daughter. Furthermore, applicant No. 1 left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause and failed to prove any act of cruelty or dowry demand by the respondent or his family members. The evidence on record showed that the respondent had made several efforts to bring her back, including approaching the police, women’s cell, and even filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. It was also admitted that the respondent had been providing financial help and care during her pregnancy. Since no complaint of harassment was ever filed by the wife, the Court concluded that she was residing separately of her own will and, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. However, considering the welfare of the minor daughter / applicant No.2, the Family Court held that the respondent is liable to pay maintenance for the child as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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.