Dismissed

Dilip v. Purnima

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2022CRR/337/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Revision, the High Court rejected the husband's challenge to a Family Court order. The lower court had granted maintenance to the wife and minor son under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The revision court held that the Family Court did not err in finding cruelty and liability for maintenance, dismissing the revision. (62 words)

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; order instructing maintenance under Section 125 CrPC of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, stands upheld.

Dilip Vs Purnima — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Revision No.337 of 2016

¶4

Dilip S/o Suddhu Joshi (Bhatri), Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Birebhat, Police Station- Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, Distirct- Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Purnima W/o Dilip Bhatri Joshi, Aged About 34 Years

¶8

Chandrashekhar S/o Dilip Bhatri (Joshi), Aged About 12 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Purnima W/o Dilip Bhatri Joshi

¶9

(Both are r/o Village Medesara, Police Station Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh)

¶10

	---- Non-applicants
For Applicant	– Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondents	–Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.
S.B.:-Hon'ble	Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board

¶11

15-09-2022

¶12

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage.

¶13

This Criminal Revision is filed against the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, C.G., in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.148/2014 dated 11.03.2016, whereby the application filed by the non-applicants for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the non-applicants (wife and son) have been awarded Rs.1000/- – 1000/- maintenance.

¶14

The Case is like that the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

¶15

-2-

¶16

was moved by the non-applicants herein for grant of maintenance of Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- total Rs.5000/- on the ground that marriage between the non-applicant No.1 and applicant was solemnized 14 years prior to date of filing of application according to Hindu rights and rituals and out of such wedlock, the nonapplicant No.2- Chandrashekhar was born.

¶17

It is further stated that the applicant herein performed second marriage along with one Rukmani and a son and a daughter were born out of such wedlock. After second marriage, the present applicant started harassing the non-applicant with demand of Rs.1,00,000/- dowry and ultimately the present non-applicants were ousted from the house of the applicant. The non-applicants further pleaded that the applicant is a mason and he is earning Rs.10,000/- per month from his profession and Rs.15,000/- from agriculture. The applicant herein filed reply to the application and denied the contents of application and specifically pleaded that with the consent of the non-applicant No.1/wife, he got married to Rukmani and all were residing peacefully without any problem, but thereafter without any sufficient reason, the non-applicant No.1 along with son- Nageshwar, left his house and thereafter, a meeting was convened but she refused to stay along with the present applicant.

¶18

He further stated in his reply that the non-applicant No.1 was suffering from some ailment, therefore, she herself compelled the applicant to marry her cousin. The non-applicant No.1 examined herself as A.W.-1, Gendlal as A.W.-2 and exhibited 01 forgiveness deed dated 12.06.2007, whereas the applicant herein examined

¶19

himself as N.A.W.-1, Pawan Kumar Joshi as N.A.W.-2, Shishupal Bharti as N.A.W.-3, Balak Prasad Joshi as N.A.W.-4 and Jodhan Joshi as N.A.W.-5 and he has produced his income certificate issued by the Panchayat dated 08.11.2013.

¶20

The learned Family Court framed issues and came to conclusion that the non-applicants are unable to maintain themselves, the applicant has sufficient means to maintain his wife and son, the non-applicant is residing separately on account of sufficient cause and non-applicants are entitled to get Rs.1000/- – 1000/- each as maintenance. The applicant/husband has filed the instant Criminal Revision against the order passed by the learned Family Court dated 11.03.2016 before this Court.

¶21

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the nonapplicant No.1 is still residing separately without any sufficient cause, the applicant approached her 15 -16 times but she refused to come back to her matrimonial house. She has sufficient means of income and the present applicant is residing with his second wife and children, therefore, the non-applicants are not entitled for any maintenance and learned Family Court has committed illegality in awarding Rs.1000/- – 1000/- maintenance to them.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the applicant is residing along with Rukmani from last 15 years and actually both have performed marriage and he has 02 children with Rukmani. Complaint was made by the non-applicant No.1 before the Police Station and same is mentioned in the forgiveness deed Ex.P/1 produced by the present applicant.

¶23

-4-

¶24

Further in that deed the present applicant has admitted that he will maintain his wife and children properly and he will not abuse or assault them and it was signed by the present applicant in presence of the senior members of the society. He submits that the learned Family Court has rightly passed order for grant of maintenance.

¶25

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the applicant/husband is residing along with one Rukmani and 02 children. The applicant has made statement that with the consent and advice of nonapplicant No.1, Rukmani started residing in house of the applicant and later on 02 children were born. It is also not in dispute that after birth of 02 children from Rukmani, non-applicant No.1 left the house but prior to it according to Ex.P/1, a complaint was lodged to the Police Station and thereafter, meeting was convened in which the applicant had given assurance to maintain nonapplicants properly and to not repeat his activities of assault, abuse after consuming liquor in future. The non-applicant No.1 has made allegation that after the second marriage, the present applicant started abusing and assaulting her along with demand of dowry and this fact has not been controverted by the applicant. The witnesses of the wife has supported her case, whereas, witnesses of the applicant/husband have supported the case of applicant, but the non-applicant/wife has specifically stated in her cross-examination that no consent or advice was given to the applicant to marry Rukmani. The applicant is residing along with another lady without the dissolution of his first marriage and which itself is sufficient ground for non-applicant No.1 to reside

¶26

separately and it amounts to cruelty. Therefore, learned Family Court has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.1000/- – 1000/- to the non-applicant.

¶27

10.Fallout and consequence of the above discussion is that the Family Court has not committed any illegality in granting maintenance to the non-applicants and consequently, this Criminal Revision is liable to be & hereby dismissed.

¶28

With aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), this Criminal Revision stands disposed of.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Monika

¶31

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

Dilip v. Purnima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip v. Purnima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Lal Kenwat and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raja @ Shakti Mohammad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakhan Lal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gautam Kurmi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Xyz (Minor) Vs State of Chhattisgarh