1 2025:CGHC:2827 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1083 of 2018 1. Smt. Durgesh Tiwari, W/o Dilip Tiwari Aged About 28 Years R/o Sanjay Dubey S/o Rameshwar Dubey, Heeralal Ward Daupara Mungeli, Tahsil and District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, 2. Navya Tiwari D/o Dilip Tiwari Aged About two and half years ( Minor ) Through Natural Guardian Mother Durgesh Tiwari, R/o Sanjay Dubey S/o Rameshwar Dubey, Heeralal Ward Daupara Mungeli, Tahsil and District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner(s) versus Dilip @ Sanju Tiwari S/o Ramsumiran Tiwari Aged About 30 Years R/o Baloda Bazar Garden Chowk, Kamal Colony, Before House of Manoj Chat Baloda Bazar Tahsil and District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.17 20:47:29 +0530 2 2. This petition has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Session Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Cr. Case No. 09/2018, whereby the learned Additional Judge partly allowed the revision against the maintenance order dated 05.02.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Mungeli, under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Durgesh Tiwari was married to respondent Dilip @Sanju Tiwari on 13.07.2013 according to Hindu rites and customs in Ram Mandir Tilak Nagar Bilaspur. Petitioner No. 2 was born on 01.01.2015 out of wedlock of petitioner No. 1 and the respondent. According to the petitioner, respondent used to torture physically, mentally and economically. The respondent drived out the petitioners out of matrimonial house, now they are residing in their paternal home. The respondent has 10 acres of agricultural land which gives him income of Rs. 4 lakh per annum. Moreover, the respondnet had a residential house from where he receives Rs. 15000/- per month rent. The petitioner have no source of income. The petitioner No. 1 filed an application for maintenance under the provisions of section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli. The respondent denied the allegations of application and stated that petitioner No.1 has voluntarily deserted the conjugal life and also denied the income as stated by the petitioner. The respondent prayed that the application of applicants may be rejected. In the court before Judicial Magistrate First Class statements of applicant Durgesh Tiwari and her mother Sushila Shukla were recorded. The respondent examined himself and led the evidence of Nisha Shukla. After hearing the parties, the learned Judicial 3 Magistrate First Class allowed the application vide order dated 05.04.2018 and granted maintenance Rs. 3000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and Rs. 2000/- per month to minor daughter. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the respondent filed revision, the learned revisional Court partly allowed the revision and set aside the order of maintenance passed in favour of petitioner No.1 on the ground that she is living in her paternal home without any just cause. The order of learned revisional Court is illegal and perverse, hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned revisional Court has committed illegality in holding that the petitioner is residing in her parental home on his own and without just cause. He further submits that the learned revisional Court has committed illegality in relying upon ikrarnama dated 02.06.2014 which was never confronted to the petitioner and the petitioner has denied the same and the order passed by the learned revisional Court is illegal and causing injustice to the petitioners. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 04.05.2018 may be set-aside and restore the order of the JMFC, District - Mungeli. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the aforesaid submissions and and supports the impugned judgment/orders passed by the revisional Court. He further submits that petitioner No.1/ wife is residing in her parental house on her own will and without sufÏcient reason. Therefore, the learned revisional Court has rightly passed the impugned order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made hereinabove and gone through the records with 4 utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of the material facts available on the record and after going through the order/judgment passed by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, it transpires that the JMFC Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record has rightly passed the order in favour of the petitioners and has granted appropriate maintenance amount to them, however, the order passed by the learned revisional Court suffers from illegality, infirmity in not providing maintenance amount to petitioner No.1/wife without there being any evidence to show that she without any sufÏcient cause is living separately from her husband, though the trial Court gave specific reason for granting maintenance to the wife also. Thus, the impugned order is quashed with respect to petitioner No.1/wife only. For the foregoing reasons, it is directed that the respondent/husband shall now pay maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- in favour of petitioner No.1/wife from today. Further, the order passed by the revisional Court for grant of maintenance amount in favour of petitioner No.2/child is hereby afÏrmed. 8. Resultantly, this petition is partly allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti