This revision petition challenged the Family Court's order partly allowing a Section 125 CrPC maintenance claim. The High Court upheld the rejection of the wife's claim due to her refusal to cohabit, while upholding the maintenance granted to the minor child.
The revision petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 292 of 2011
Versus
Ravendra Kumar Sahu, Aged about 25 years, S/o Tejraj Sahu, R/o Sheetalpara, Hathkhoj, P.S. & Tahsil Bhilai-3, Distt. Durg (C.G.) –- Non-applicant/Respondent
| For Applicants/Petitioners : |
Shri D.N.Prajapati, Advocate. |
|---|---|
| For Non-applicant/Respondent: | Shri Shiv Kumar Sahu and Shri |
| Uttam Pandey, Advocates. |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
06.10.2023
Heard.
2
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the applicants/petitioners has been partly allowed by the Family Court while directing the Nonapplicant/Respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to applicant No.2 – Ku. Anshikar Sahu from the date of order, i.e., 29.03.2011 till she gets married and attains majority. However, the Family Court rejected the application in so far as it relates to applicant No.1 on the ground that she failed to prove her case.
3
filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. partly with a direction to Nonapplicant to pay maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to his daughter from the date of order till she gets married and attains majority, however, rejected the application in so far as the applicant No.1 is concerned. Hence, this revision.
4
conditions. Her statement further shows that she would not stay with him even if her husband desires to keep with his parents. It is also admitted by her that she is always willing to live separately. Her statement also shows that after the birth of her child, she did not allow Non-applicant to see the child, but on the other hand, she has stated that her husband did not at all come to see her child. It is evident from her statement that despite there being order by the Court, she did not show her child to him as her child cannot be brought to the outside environment till the age of 7 years. It is also evident from her statement that she has taken back the material whatever has been given during marriage. Her statement further shows that during counselling, she had refused to live with the Non-applicant and had asked for the material to be returned and that there is no possibility of living with the Nonapplicant in future. Considering the evidence available on record, the Family Court, while rejecting the application in so far as it relates to applicant No.1, recorded a finding that the applicant No.1 has failed to prove her case, which in my considered opinion, is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, therefore, does not call for interference.
(Radhakishan Agrawal ) Judge
Anjani
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court's rejection of maintenance application for the wife due to her separate residence after marriage dispute.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order granting maintenance to the minor child.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Archana Sahu
Kumari Anshikar Sahu
Ravendra Kumar Sahu
Radhakishan Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
