Dismissed

Smt. Narmada Bai v. Hans Das

Chhattisgarh HC28 Jul 2023CRR/254/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an application in revision against a Family Court order denying maintenance to a wife. The court held the lower court correctly appreciated evidence that the wife was living with another man, justifying the revocation of maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Application for revision is dismissed; original order of the Family Court upholding the husband's application under Section 127 CrPC remains intact.

Smt. Narmada Bai Vs Hans Das — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 254 of 2019

¶5

Order reserved on : 04/05/2023

¶6

Order pronounced on : 28/07/2023

¶7

Smt. Narmada Bai W/o Hansraj Manikpuri Aged About 37 Years R/o Mohan Talkies Jamnipali Road, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh Presently R/o House Of Mahant, Village Kothari, P. S. Urga, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Hans Das S/o Rup Das Aged About 63 Years Caste Manikpuri, R/o Qtr. No. E-359, H. T. P. Colony, Kailash Vihar, Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Behind Vishwakarma Temple Rumgara, P. S. Balco Nagar, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

For Applicant : Shri Mirza Kaiser Baeg, Advocate For Respondent : Shri S.P. Sannat, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Judge CAV Order

¶14

This criminal revision is filed under Section 19 (4) of Family Court against the order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District- Korba in Criminal M.J.C. No. 49/2017 whereby the application filed by the respondent/husband was allowed by setting aside the order dated 14.04.2014 passed in MJC No. 52/2012 whereby the wife was granted the maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month under

¶15

¶16

Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- before the learned Family Court, Court Camp, Katghora on which the learned Family Court vide order dated 14.04.2014 passed in MJC No.52/2012 partly allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs. 6,000/per month to the applicant/wife. Thereafter, on 23.08.2017, respondent/husband filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Katghora mentioning that the applicant/ wife has married one Balram Behara through Chudi custom and she is living in adultery with him and, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance.

¶18

Learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, allowed the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/husband vide impugned order dated 13.11.2018 by setting aside the order dated 14.04.2014 whereby the applicant/wife was granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month. hence, this petition filed by the applicant/wife.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 is perverse and has been passed without applying the judicial mind and thus deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court without any sufficient evidence held that the applicant/wife has married to one Balram Behra whereas Balram Behra has clearly stated that he is a married man and the name of his wife is Ranju Behra and from their wedlock, he has 4 daughters, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Family court, Korba is totally incorrect and order impugned suffers from illegality, impropriety and incorrectness, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that the

¶21

¶22

respondent/husband by oral and documentary evidence has proved this fact that the applicant/wife is living an adulterous life and, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.

¶23

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

¶24

Before trial Court, respondent/husband examined total 5 witnesses in his favour and wife/applicant also examined 3 witnesses in her favour. Respondent/husband has filed documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex. P/8 wherein Ex.P/1 is a notice under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. based on respondent/husband’s complaint. Ex.P/2 is also a written complaint filed by the respondent/husband in which he complained against his wife/applicant. Ex.P/3, Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/7 are also written complaints of the respondent/husband. Witnesses Saheb Das (A/W-2), Dayal Chouhan (A/W-3), Jhadu Das (A/W-4) and Vijay Kumar Sahu (A/W-5) have clearly stated that Narmada Bai/applicant has eloped with Balram Behra. Respondent/husband also filed various applications i.e. Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/6 before Police Station- Korba on the ground that his wife Narmada Bai/applicant is living with Balram Behra.

¶25

Narmada Bai/applicant has also examined Balram Behra in her support and he denied allegations of respondent/husband but on perusal of the record, it appears that applicant/wife was not living with her respondent/husband since 04.06.2012. Learned trial Court found that the applicant/wife did not prove this fact that she is living with her father and also did not controvert the statements of respondent’s witnesses and, therefore, it was held that the applicant/wife is living with Balram Behra. Before family Court, applicant/wife has failed to prove this fact that she is living with her father after leaving the home of her husband and respondent/husband has proved this fact that on several

¶26

¶27

times he made complaints against the applicant/wife and Balram Behara at Police Station. Therefore, learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence of the parties and arrived at the finding that the applicant/wife is living with Balram Behra and allowed the application of respondent/husband.

¶28

The finding recorded by the learned trial court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, therefore, this petition being without any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶29

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶30

Ruchi

Smt. Narmada Bai v. Hans Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Narmada Bai v. Hans Das

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. Dhaneshwari Nayak and Another Vs Tilakram Banjara