Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34188 (CHH)

Foolmati Gendre v. Laxman Gendre

CRR/859/2016 · 2025-09-08

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:45984 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 859 of 2016 Foolmati Gendre W/o Laxman Gendre Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Bhaluchuwa, Thana- Bhoramdev, Tahsil- Kawardha, District- Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Dullapur Ranisagar, Thana/ Tahsil- Kawardha, District- Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Laxman Gendre S/o Bhakdu Gendre Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Bhaluchuwa, Thana- Bhoramdev Rajnandgaon, Tahsil - Bodla, District- Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Prasad, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set aside the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 impugned order dated 14.07.2016 passed by the learned family court, and further the application of applicant for maintenance as filed before the Family court, may be allowed, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant/wife and the respondent/husband was solemnized about 26 years ago as per Hindu religious rites and customs. After the marriage, the applicant began residing at her matrimonial home and initially led a peaceful marital life. However, over a period of time, the respondent started subjecting the applicant to physical assault, harassment, and cruelty. It is specifically alleged that the respondent developed an illicit relationship with one Vimla Bai, and both of them together used to ill-treat and harass the applicant. Owing to such continuous cruelty and assault, the applicant was left with no option but to leave her matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents. Having no independent source of income and being entirely dependent on her parents for her sustenance, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Kabirdham (C.G.), seeking a reasonable amount of maintenance from the respondent for her survival. The respondent, despite having sufficient means, neglected and refused to maintain the applicant. After considering the pleadings and hearing both sides, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated Annexure A-1, dismissed the application filed by the applicant. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. The learned Family Court has failed to properly consider the material available on record while passing the order, resulting in a manifest miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that the Family Court itself recorded that the respondent has admitted to a “living relationship” with the applicant (Para 34), yet, without proper appreciation of this admission and the supporting evidence, the Court proceeded to pass the impugned order, which is thereby vitiated by material illegality and deserves to be quashed. Furthermore, the learned Family Court erred in law and on facts by overlooking the financial condition of the respondent/husband, who is a laborer, agriculturist, and driver, earning only around Rs.20,000/- – 25,000/- per month, and bearing the responsibility of maintaining his dependent family members. The Court’s failure to consider these crucial aspects renders the impugned order unjust, unreasonable, and wholly unsustainable in law. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kabeerdham, District- Kabeerdham (Kawardha), (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a careful appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances of the case, has rightly and lawfully dismissed the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the applicant. While the applicant alleged harassment and ill-treatment by the respondent and his association with another woman, the Family Court, after examining the evidence, found that such allegations were either vague, unsubstantiated, or not supported by credible proof. The Court considered the fact that the applicant has been residing with her parents and that there was insufficient material to establish that she was entitled to maintenance from the respondent. Further, the learned Family Court properly evaluated the financial and personal circumstances of the respondent, who is responsible for his family and household, and reasonably concluded that there was no legal or moral obligation to award maintenance under the circumstances. By conducting a thorough inquiry, recording evidence, and hearing both parties before arriving at its decision, the Family Court acted judiciously, in accordance with law, and in the exercise of sound discretion. 8. Considering the submission 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. 5 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Office is directed to copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within 48 hours for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan