1 2025:CGHC:6309 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 232 of 2018 1 - Smt. Lalita Rao W/o R. Venkatrao, Aged About 35 Years R/o Subham Steel Industries, Balaoda Road, Near Railway Crossing, Akaltara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. At present residing at in front of Charch Jyotipur, Gaurela, Tahsil – Pendraroad, District – Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 - Sidharth Rao S/o R. Venkatrao Aged About 10 Years Petitioner No. 2 Is Minor And Being Represented Through Mother Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Lalita Rao, R/o Subham Steel Industries, Balaoda Road, Near Railway Crossing, Akaltara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. At present residing at in front of Charch Jyotipur, Gaurela, Tahsil – Pendraroad, District – Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - Ku. Prachi Rao D/o R. Venkat Rao Aged About 9 Years Petitioner No. 3 Is Minor And Being Represented Through Mother Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Lalita Rao, R/o Subham Steel Industries, Balaoda Road, Near Railway Crossing, Akaltara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. At present residing at in front of Charch Jyotipur, Gaurela, Tahsil – Pendraroad, District – Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioners versus R. Venkat Rao S/o Late Ramchandar Aged About 75 Years R/o Subham Steel Industries, Balaoda Road, Near Railway Crossing, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. V. S. Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ashok Soni, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.02.2025 1. This petition under Section 482 of the CrPC is being aggrieved of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Pendra Road, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) on 22.11.2017 in Criminal Revision No. 44/2016, arising out of the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 41/2012, whereby the learned revisional Court has directed the respondent to pay maintenance to the petitioners and partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the petitioners for grant of maintenance. Hence, the petitioners preferred this petition. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the petitioners had preferred an application under Section 125 of the CrPC for amount of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 10,000/- each to the petitioner No.2 and 3 on the ground that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 was solemnized with respondent on 18.05.2001 with Hindu Rites and Rituals. During the said wedlock the petitioner No. 2 and 3 born. The respondent and his family member begin to torture the petitioner No.1 on account of provocation of his joint family member used to maltreat the petitioner and her children ultimately on 21.05.2011, the younger brother of the respondent making pretend to the petitioner left her in her father’s house at Pendra Road. The petitioner further pleaded that she is having to live separate due to sufÏcient cause and he has no means of earning therefore the respondent is liable to maintain the petitioners being liable for the same. The respondent filed his reply and denied the allegations levelled against him and further pleaded that he has very low income as he worked in the place but he admitted that he is living in joint family and no partition have taken place in joint 3 Hindu Family property the fabrication work, and factory of Elmira as well as Shubham Industries and Crasser are being run. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence awarded Rs. 2,000/- in total in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 11.11.2017. The petitioner being aggrieved with order passed by the learned trial Court and preferred a Criminal Revision before the learned revisional Court for enhancement of the amount. The learned revisional Court vide order dated 22.11.2017, enhanced the amount of Rs. 1,000/- only in favour of the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the revisional Court as well as the trial Court passed the impugned order without going through and appreciating the documentary evidence available on record, which are liable to be set-aside. The petitioners No. 2 and 3 are studying in the schools, whereas the petitioner No.1 has no means of earning further the petitioner or having live after taking residential house. But, the revisional Court as well as the trial Court did not consider in any aspects. The respondent himself has admitted in his written statement and evidence that in his joint family they are number of source of income. The family status where the petitioners used to live was high, but Rs. Only 3,000/- is very low amount to maintain the family. 4. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner No.1 has died during the pendency of the present petition, therefore, he prays for withdraw the present petition with respect to the petitioner No.1. 4 5. As the petitioner No.1 has died during the pendency of the present petition, hence, the instant petition so far as the same relates to the petitioner No.1 - Smt. Lalita Rao, is dismissed as withdrawn. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent opposes the prayer for grant of maintenance to the applicant and submits that the respondent, R. Venkat Rao, has a joint business with his brothers, he has his own saffron in Akaltara Latiya Road from which he earns about Rs. 10,00,000/- annually, fabrication work is done in the shop situated in front of the residential house near the railway colony from which he earns about Rs. 1,50,000/- annually, but it is also clear that the petitioners No. 2 and 3 are studying in the schools and they have no means of earning, due to which in the present case the applicant had requested for monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- from the respondent to the petitioners No.2 and 3, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Raod, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) has partly allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC by passing the impugned order, and ordered the respondent/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month in total to the petitioners, from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 22.11.2017, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5 8. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that allegation raised by the petitioner No.1 against the respondent is that she has been living separately from the respondent for so many years as the respondent was treating her with mental and physical cruelty. It is clear that cruelty is just and sufÏcient ground for the wife to live separately from his husband, further the fact that the respondent, R. Venkat Rao, has a joint business with his brothers, he has his own saffron in Akaltara Latiya Road from which he earns about Rs. 10,00,000/- annually, fabrication work is done in the shop situated in front of the residential house near the railway colony from which he earns about Rs. 1,50,000/- annually, but it is also clear that the petitioners No. 2 and 3 are studying in the schools and they have no means of earning, due to which in the present case the applicant had requested for monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- from the respondent to the petitioners No.2 and 3, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Raod, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) has partly allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC by passing the impugned order, and ordered the respondent/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month in total to the petitioners, from the date of passing of the impugned order. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Raod, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and 6 considering the conditions of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, and monthly income of the respondent, has partly allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC, and ordered the respondent/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. Rs. 3,000/- per month in total to the petitioners, but considering the fact that the wife/petitioner No.1 has died during the pendency of the present petition and the petitioner No.2 and 3 are the children of the respondent who are studying in the school, therefore the respondent must pay the maintenance to the petitioners No.2 and 3 as has been directed by the revisional Court vide impugned order order dated 22.11.2017, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 of the CrPC being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar