Partly allowed

Bedram Dhritlahare v. Smt. Ekta Dhritlahare

Chhattisgarh HC7 Sept 2023CRR/1257/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision under the Family Court Act challenging a maintenance order. The Court modified the order to award maintenance from the date of the impugned order rather than the date of the application.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of Rs.7,000 per month ordered from the date of the impugned order; interim maintenance granted from the date of the Section 125 application.

Bedram Dhritlahare Vs Smt. Ekta Dhritlahare — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 1257 of 2022

¶5

Order Reserved on : 26.06.2023 Order Delivered on : 07.09.2023

¶6

Bedram Dhritlahare, S/o Gajju Dhritlahare, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Khamariya (Champa), Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Ekta Dhritlahare, W/o Bedram Dhritlahare, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Soniya Nagar, Khamtarai, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

(Cause title is taken from Court Information System)

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶14

C A V Order

¶15

The Applicant-husband has filed this revision under Section 19 (4) of of the Family Court Act, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.11.2022 (Annexure A-1) passed in Criminal M.C.C. No.382/2021 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, whereby an application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed granting maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month.

¶16

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of applicant and respondent solemnized on 17.06.2020 according to the Hindu rites and ritual. After passage of some time, some dispute cropped up between them and their relation became strain and respondent-wife due to her frequent ill health moved to her parental house. Thereafter, the respondentwife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month against the applicant-husband. The learned trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the application of respondent-wife granting Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing of application. Hence, this petition filed by the applicant-husband.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is on higher side as the learned Court below has not appreciated the income of the non-applicant/applicant herein in proper perspective. The applicant/husband has specifically stated that he earns only Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3000/- per month but the learned Court below did not consider this aspect and passed the impugned order granting maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent-wife. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is ready to keep respondent-wife with him but the respondent-wife herself moved out of the house of

¶19

¶20

the applicant on account of ill health. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant-husband belong to poor family and Below Poverty Line (B.P.L.) card holder, which clearly speaks of his actual financial position but the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the merit of the case and has shown undue sympathy in favour of respondent-wife and passed unreasonable order. The Applicant is daily wager and his family members are dependent upon him. The respondent-wife did file any document establishing the income of the applicant-husband, as such, the order passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be set aside.

¶21

The learned counsel for the respondent-wife supporting the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court state that the learned Family Court after considering all the aspect of the matter has rightly passed the order impugned.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶23

Before the learned trial Court, the respondent-wife examined herself and two witnesses namely Rehman Khan (AW/2) and Chaitram Bandhe (AW/3). The applicant/husband also examined himself and two witnesses namely Mohan Das (NAW/2) and Manmohan Ghrutlahre (NAW/3).

¶24

The applicant-husband admitted this fact that criminal case

¶25

¶26

under Section 498-A IPC is pending against him. The applicant-husband has also stated that his income is Rs.100/- per day.

¶27

Respondent-wife has stated in her affidavit filed under Order Rule 04 of Cr.P.C. that the applicant-husband and his family members have 5 acre of agricultural land situated at village Khamhariya from which they earn Rs.2,50,000/-. That apart, the applicant-husband is working in cement factory from where he gets Rs.9,000/- per months. Likewise, the applicant-husband earn Rs.3,58,000/- per annum. In crossexamination, the applicant-husband did not ask any question regarding his income.

¶28

Rehman Khan (AW/2) has also stated in para 13 of his affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 04 that the applicanthusband and his family members have 5 acre of agricultural land situated at village Khamhariya from which they earn Rs.2,50,000/-. That apart, the applicant-husband is working in cement factory from where he gets Rs.9,000/- per months. Likewise, the applicant-husband earn Rs.3,58,000/per annum, however, in his cross-examination, no question was asked by the applicant-husband, as such, the statement of respondent-wife and her witnesses has not been rebutted by the applicant-husband in their crossexamination and the learned Family Court, after

¶29

¶30

appreciating the evidence of both the parties, passed the impugned order. The order passed by the learned Family Court granting Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance, in the opinion of this Court, is in accordance with the evidence of adduced by both the parties.

¶31

So far as question of granting maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to respondent-wife from the date of filing of application dated 30.07.2021 is concerned, it is clear from order sheet dated 11.03.2022 that the learned Family Court allowed the interim maintenance application of respondent-wife and awarded Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance till final disposal of main application. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, the order of learned Family Court so far as it relates to ‘ from the date of filing of application dated 30.07.2021 ’, is liable to be modified.

¶32

Thus, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 10.11.2022 is modified to the extent that the applicant-husband shall pay Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent-wife from the date of impugned order dated 10.11.2022 (Annexure A/1). It is also ordered that the applicant-husband shall pay interim maintenance to respondent-wife from the date of filing of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. till the date of passing of impugned

¶33

¶34

order dated 10.11.2022.

¶35

12. Revision is thus allowed in part.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)

JUDGE

pkd

Bedram Dhritlahare v. Smt. Ekta Dhritlahare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bedram Dhritlahare v. Smt. Ekta Dhritlahare

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

Smt. Devkumari Vs Smt. Pardeshnin Bai

Rajendra Gawalani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pawan Kumar Srivas Vs Smt. Kiran Srivas

Smt.Chandrakali Maravi Vs Chamasheelwati and Ors.

Pannalal Jain Vs Nohar singh

Pratima Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh