1 2025:CGHC:29565 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 176 of 2017 Same Lal Porte S/o Shital Singh Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post- Ranjna, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Sita Bai W/o Same Lal Porte Aged About 32 Years D/o Indrapal Markam, At Present R/o Village And Post- Korbi, Tahsil Podi- Uproda, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Adiya Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Aditya Khare, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and be pleased to set- aside /quash the impugned order dated 12.09.2016. passed by the learned Family Court in M.J.C. No.04/15, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant and the non-applicant was solemnized on 21.05.2005 at Korbi, according to caste customs and rituals. After the marriage, she started residing with the non-applicant at Village Ranjana. However, from the very beginning, the non-applicant began subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty. He would taunt her frequently and treat her in a biased manner. With the intention of separating from her, he would verbally abuse and physically assault her. The applicant tolerated all the harassment, hoping that his behavior might improve in the future, but no such change occurred. Eventually, the non-applicant left the applicant at her parental home after subjecting her to cruelty and has since refused to take her back. As a result, the applicant has been residing at her maternal home since 19.08.2005. The non- applicant has not contacted her or taken any responsibility for her maintenance since then, thereby failing to perform his moral and legal obligations. Due to lack of financial hardship, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance of Rs 10,000/-. The applicant has no source of income. On the other hand, the non-applicant earns Rs. 20,000/- per month by teaching tuition. Additionally, his father owns agricultural land where paddy, wheat, and vegetables are cultivated, generating an annual income of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Apart from this, the non-applicant also earns approximately Rs. 3,00,000/- annually by cultivating other people’s land on a crop-sharing basis 3 (Adhiya). Thus, the non-applicant is financially capable of maintaining the applicant. 4. In his written statement, the non-applicant admitted the contents of Paragraph 1 of the original application but denied the remaining allegations. He stated that after the marriage, on 19.06.2005, the applicant went to her parental home in Village Korbi to celebrate a festival. When the non-applicant went to bring her back, she refused to return with him. This act of the applicant disturbed him and made him fearful about the future of their relationship. He then convened several social meetings, but despite that, neither the applicant nor her family showed any interest in continuing the marital relationship. Frustrated by the situation, the non-applicant submitted an application before the Gondwana Mahasabha Centre, Tiwarta, seeking to restore his married life. The Gondwana Mahasabha issued a notice to the applicant to appear, but she did not respond. Consequently, the Mahasabha declared the marriage void and permitted the non-applicant to remarry and lead a marital life. Even after this, the non-applicant tried to contact the applicant to resume their married life, but she showed no interest or willingness. The non-applicant also submitted that on 11.04.2014, he filed a divorce petition before the Family Court. The Court issued summons to the applicant, but she did not appear. Instead, she, feeling aggrieved, filed another case before the Family Cour. After that, the applicant stayed with the non-applicant for two months. In the divorce petition (paragraph 4), the applicant admitted that the non-applicant never established any physical relationship with her and that he was 4 impotent. However, driven by greed, the applicant later withdrew the divorce petition she had filed. 5. The non-applicant also claimed that the applicant lives with her parents and is engaged in tailoring and embroidery work, earning around Rs. 20,000/- per month. He stated that the applicant has been living separately from him for the last 9–10 years. 6. The learned Family Court concerned after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 12.09.2016, whereby the non-applicant/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance to the applicant/wife and further order to bear additional expenses proceedings of Rs. 500/-. Hence, this revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the learned Family Court has failed to see that the applicant has herself deserted the non-applicant by making false allegation and committed cruelty on the applicant. He further submits that no complaint was made against the applicant regarding harassment or cruelty before police or any other Court. The applicant herself has filed divorce case on false grounds so as to harass the non-applicant. The applicant has withdrawn without any reason and when the non-applicant called a meeting even though the applicant did not come and refused to solve the dispute if any. And after 12 years of marriage this application has been filed. It is submitted that as per the own version of applicant she resided only 2 months with non-applicant after marriage. The applicant has also filed a divorce case against 5 the non-applicant. It is submitted that the parties are tribe community and they are governing by their own custom and as such the decision of social meeting dated 20.04.2008 is binding on the non-applicant. The learned Family Court has not appreciated the case of the applicant in proper manner and committed error by allowing the application. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside. 8. Learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the concerned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that similarly, the applicant did not submit any income certificate regarding the non- applicant’s earnings and only stated orally that he provides tuition to children. In the absence of any income certificate, and without the testimony of the parents of the children allegedly being tutored by the non-applicant, the statement made by the applicant regarding the non-applicant earning income through tuition could not be accepted as reliable. Likewise, with respect to the claim that the non-applicant cultivates others’ land on a crop-sharing basis (Adhiya), no witnesses were presented by the applicant who could confirm ownership of such land or the fact of it being cultivated by the non-applicant. Therefore, it could not be established that the 6 non-applicant earns any income from the aforementioned activities. However, it is a well-settled principle of law that if a person is physically and mentally fit, he is under a legal and moral obligation to maintain his legally wedded wife and children. He cannot take the plea of being unemployed as a ground for evading the responsibility of providing maintenance to his wife. In the present case, the non- applicant has been found to be physically and mentally healthy. Hence, he has been held capable of maintaining his wife, i.e., the applicant. As the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the non- applicant, she is entitled to claim maintenance from him. 11. The learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹1500/- per month to the applicant/wife. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living to which the applicant was accustomed during the subsistence of marriage, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 7 12. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance amount of Rs. 1500/- per month to the applicant/wife. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal