1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 669 of 2012 1. Smt. Rukmani Soni @ Rajkumari Soni, W/o Kamalnarayan Soni, aged about 24 Years, 2. Raman Kumar Soni (Minor), S/o Kamalnarayan Soni, aged about 3 years, ( Applicant No.2 being minor through her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Rukmani Soni @ Rajkumari Soni) Both R/o Gandhi Nagar, Gudhiyari, P.S. - Gudhiyari, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicants versus • Kamalnarayan Soni, S/o Laxminarayan Soni, aged about 30 years, R/o Near Shitla Mandir, Sahu Para, Fafadih, Raipur, Tah. and Distt. - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Pooja Loniya, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Akanksha Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dheerendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 18/02/2025 1. The instant revision has been filed by the present applicants under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 30.07.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. in Criminal M.J.C. No.148/2010, whereby the application filed by the applicants under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance has been allowed in part while granting maintenance PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.02.19 17:22:04 +0530 2 amount of Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2 - Raman Kumar Soni (minor son) but with respect to applicant No.1 – Smt. Rukmani Soni @ Rajkumari Soni (wife), her claim was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. stating that applicant No.1/Smt. Rukmani Soni @ Rajkumari Soni was married to the non-applicant – Kamalnarayan Soni (respondent herein) as per Hindu rituals and customs on 21.04.2008 and out of their wedlock, on 13.03.2009 one male child was born i.e. applicant No.2 – Raman Kumar Soni. After marriage, applicant No.1 was subjected to harassment both mentally and physically with respect to dowry and other petty issues. It is further alleged that the applicants and non-applicant used to live in a rented house and non-applicant had illicit relation with lady land-lord. The applicant/wife insisted her husband to break relationship with the lady land-lord but he refused to do so. Thereafter, applicant/wife left her husband and started residing at her parental house. 3. By filing written statement, the respondent denied the averments made by applicant No.1. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case before the Family Court. 4. Learned Family Court, after appreciation of evidence, held that applicant is residing separately on her own will along with her minor child in her parental home without any sufficient reason and refused to go and live with the non-applicant/respondent, therefore, she is not entitled to get maintenance from him, however, granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.2, while rejecting the claim of applicant No.1. Hence, this revision. 3 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the order impugned as passed by the Family Court rejecting to grant maintenance to applicant No.1 is totally contrary to law. She further submits that the learned Family Court has lost sight of the fact that the applicant No.1 was living in her parental home due to torture and harassment meted out by her husband/non-applicant. It is further stated that non-applicant used to live in a rented house where he had illicit relation with his lady land-lord. The applicant/wife tried to stop her husband to maintain illicit relationship with the lady land-lord and further requested to vacate the rented house but he refused to do so. Thereafter, applicant/wife left her husband and started residing separately at her parental house. Further, applicant No.1 is ready to live with her husband if he breaks his relationship with the lady land- lord. She further submitted that non-applicant/husband is working as Assistant Railway Driver and earning sufficient amount to pay the maintenance amount to the applicants. She further submits that she is not challenging the maintenance amount granted in favour of applicant No.2. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant/husband submits that it was applicant No.1, who on her own will, is living in her parental home without any sufficient reason. She further submits that the allegation leveled by applicant No.1 against her husband regarding illicit relationship with another lady is baseless as there is no evidence available in this regard. This apart, applicant No.1 and her parents used to pressurize the non-applicant to live in her parental home as live-in-son-in-law (ghar jamai). Lastly, she submits that considering every aspect of the matter, the learned Family Court has rightly come 4 to the conclusion that since wife is not residing with the non-applicant, and on her own will, is residing in her parental home, thus, has rightly rejected her application. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. Indisputably, applicant No.1/wife (AW-01), in her statement has admitted that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 21.04.2008 and out of their wedlock, a son was born on 13.03.2009. She further stated that after her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. This apart, she was in shock when she came to know that her husband was having illicit relationship with the lady land-lord and they also used to misbehave with her. The applicant/wife insisted her husband to break relationship with the lady land-lord and further requested to vacate the rented house but he refused to do so and committed marpit with her. In her cross- examination, she admitted that she has not lodged the report against her husband but she was ready to live with him if he breaks his relationship with the lady land-lord. Statement of this witness is duly corroborated by the statement of Ram Gopal Soni (AW-02) who is the father of applicant No.1. A perusal of her evidence would clearly reveal that she is always ready and willing to live with her husband/respondent, but it was the respondent who is not ready to keep her with him because of illicit relationship with another lady. 9. The respondent (NAW-01) in his examination-in-chief has denied the allegations leveled against him by applicant No.1. This witness in his cross-examination has specifically admitted that he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. He further admitted that his wife/applicant No.1 5 is ready to live with him if he would vacate the rented house of the lady land-lord, but he has not vacated the rented house. In paragraph 3 of his cross-examination, this witness has specifically stated that he would not vacate the rented house of the lady land-lord and would not keep the applicant No.1 with him. In this regard, father of the respondent, namely, Laxminath Soni (NAW-02) has also stated that he has advised his son (respondent) that if he wants to improve his marital life, then he would have to vacate the rented house of the lady land lord. 10.A bare perusal of the statements of the above witnesses would reveal that the non-applicant/husband has illicit relationship with another lady who is the land lord of the rented house where the applicants and respondent used to reside on rent, due to which, the respondent used to misbehave, torture and commit marpit with applicant No.1/wife. This apart, applicant No.1/wife is also willing and ready to live with the respondent if he breaks his relationship with the lady land-lord and vacate the rented house. Father of respondent (NAW-02) also advised him to lead happy married life with his wife and not to involve in such things. This apart, during counselling at Mahila Thana, the non- applicant/husband was not ready to vacate the rented house of the lady land-lord. Thus, it is clear that the respondent is reluctant to vacate the rented house and willing to maintain his illicit relationship. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that the non-applicant/husband is an employee of Railway Department and he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month (as on 19.07.2012). Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and applicant No.2 is his son, further considering the nature of job of the non-applicant, which is not disputed 6 by him; his socio-economic status and looking to the present rate of inflation, I am of the view that ends of justice would be served, if the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month be granted to applicant No.1 from the date of filing of application i.e. 27.11.2009. Ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the present revision is allowed and the impugned order stands set-aside with respect to applicant No.1 only. Other conditions with regard to grant of maintenance amount to applicant No.2 shall remain intact. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash