Partly allowed

Smt. Dhaneshwari Nayak and Another v. Tilakram Banjara

Chhattisgarh HC28 Jul 2023CRR/219/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court revisited a Family Court order rejecting a wife's maintenance claim and awarding only Rs.2,000 to her minor child. The Court upheld the wife's rejection due to lack of sufficient cause for separation but modified the case for the child, enhancing maintenance to Rs.7,000 per month. The revision was allowed in part. Happy to assist with additional details if needed.

What did the court decide?

The revision was allowed in part; the child is entitled to maintenance of Rs.7,000 per month from the respondent.

Smt. Dhaneshwari Nayak and Another Vs Tilakram… — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No.219 of 2019

¶5

Order reserved on : 12.05.2023.

¶6

Order delivered on : 28.07 .2023

¶7

Smt. Dhaneshwari Nayak, W/o Shri Tilakram Nayak Aged About 22 Years

¶8

Mayank, S/o Shri Tilakram Nayak Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Dhaneshwari Nayak, W/o Shri Tilakram Nayak

¶9

Both R/o Village Sukhapali, Thana And Tahsil Dabra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Applicants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Tilakram Banjara S/o Shri Dhobaram Banjara Aged About 28 Years Post- Shikshakarmi Grade Iii, R/o Village Budiya, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Present Address- Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, Posted As Shiksha Karmi Grade III At Government Primary School, Irrigation Colony Darri, Post Darri, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondent

¶14

For Applicants Mr. A. K. Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent Ms. Binu Sharma, Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey

¶16

C A V Order

¶17

The applicants have preferred the present revision against the order dated 14.09.2018 passed by the learned Family Court (Link Court), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.76/2015, whereby the application filed by the applicants under section 125 of CrPC has been partly allowed and maintenance of Rs.2,000/- was directed to be paid by the respondent in favour of the applicant No.2 only, whereas the applicant No.1 wife’s claim for

¶18

¶19

maintenance has been rejected, against which present the revision has been filed.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that both the husband and wife are Hindu by religion. Their marriage was solemnized on 02.05.2013 according to the Hindu rites and rituals at Village Sukhapali, Tahsil Dabhra, in which streedhans were also given by the family members of the appellant No.1 wife, but soon after the marriage, she was mentally and physically tortured and assaulted by the respondent and his family members for demand of motorcycles and other household articles as well and even the respondent tried to ablaze her by pouring kerosene oil on her, as a result of which she left her house and lodged a report against them on 29.09.2013 at Police Station Darri, Korba and subsequently filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance of Rs.10,000/(Rs.5,000/- each) in favour of her and her child on the ground that her husband is Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and is earning Rs.25,000/per month. The said application has been allowed in part, against which the present revision has been filed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order is bad in law on facts with respect to rejection of grant of maintenance in favour of the petitioner No.1 and granting such a meagre amount to applicant No.2. The learned Court below has not considered the fact that the applicant No.1 has no source of income and the respondent is working as Assistant Teacher but wrongly held that his income is just Rs.18,000/-, whereas the salary of Assistant Teacher is more than Rs.40,000/-. The learned Trial Court stated that the applicant No.1 failed to prove the salary of the

¶22

¶23

respondent, despite the fact that the important issues were decided in favour of the applicant. The salary of the respondent is more than Rs.40,000/- per month, therefore, the applicant No.1 is entitled to get maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- atleast and Rs.5,000/per month for applicant No.2. The order is unjust and the learned Family Court wrongly rejected the application of the applicant No.1. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that for survival, just Rs.2,000/- is insufficient so the order dated 14.09.2018 bet set aside.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Family Court has rightly rejected the claim of the applicant No.1, as she is residing separately without any cogent reason. The amount awarded in favour of the applicant No.2 is also according to oral and documentary evidence available on record. The respondent proved his income as Rs.11,030/-, as such Rs.2,000/- has rightly been awarded by the Trial Court.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶26

Before the learned Trial Court, both the parties have examined their witnesses. The applicant wife filed written complaint (Annexure-P/1) and police report (Ex-P/2) and salary slip of respondent (Ex-P/3) before the Trial Court. The respondent husband filed rent agreement (Ex-D/1) and particulars of bank loan (Ex-D/3) and complaints against the petitioner No.1 (Ex-D/4 & D/5). The applicant No.1 admitted in her statement in para 16 that the respondent filed report against her. In para 18, she admitted “;g lgh gS fd mlds ckn vukosnd ds lkFk jgus ugha xbZ gwaA”. The learned Trial Court appreciated

¶27

¶28

the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties and found that the applicant No.1 is living separately without any sufficient cause and rejected the maintenance application of applicant No.1. The finding of the learned Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence of both the parties. This Court finds no illegality or irregularity in rejecting the claim of the applicant No.1.

¶29

As regards claim of applicant No.2 is concerned for enhancement of the amount awarded, the respondent has admitted this fact that he is working as Shikha Karmi Grade-3, but he did not file any salary slip and he stated in para 12 that “eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugh gS fd lfEefy;u esa esjk ekfld osru fdruk c<+k gSA”. The Trial Court found that in the year 2016, the salary of the respondent was Rs.11,030/-. Therefore, keeping in view the service of respondent and the enhanced salary as on date, Rs.2,000/- is very less amount for maintenance of any child. Therefore, the revision is allowed as regard maintenance of applicant No.2 is concerned. It is ordered that the applicant No.2, S/o of respondent, is entitled to get maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month from the respondent and the same will be paid by him.

¶30

The revision is allowed in part.

¶31

Sd/Rajani Dubey Judge

¶32

Nirala

Smt. Dhaneshwari Nayak and Another v. Tilakram Banjara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dhaneshwari Nayak and Another v. Tilakram Banjara

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

Noor Begum @ Baby Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amar Sai, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nand Kumari Adil Vs Union of India

Dattatrey Mandir Trust Vs Sanjeev Mishra

Devendra Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Narmada Bai Vs Hans Das