Dismissed¶14

Rajesh Sharma v. Arti Sharma

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jan 2025CRR/136/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 25(2) variation; reduction of maintenance upheld; employed wife (practising advocate) versus unemployed husband doing occasional labour; infant daughter left with father; dowry FIR under Section 498A/34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara order dated 20.12.2019 not interfered with; revision dismissed; mediation failed; none appeared for respondent; Chhattisgarh High Court; CRR No. 136 of 2020; companion case CRR No. 370 of 2021 referred in order dated 08.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

This Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge committed no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. ¶13

Rajesh Sharma Vs Arti Sharma — Domestic Violence | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:3582

¶3

Digitally signed by BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date: 2025.01.2210:38:39 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

CRR No. 136 of 2020

¶6

1 - Rajesh Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma Aged About 30 Years

¶7

2 - Om Prakash Sharma S/o Amarchand Sharma,

¶8

3 - Sushila Sharma W/o Om Prakash Sharma Aged About 50 Years

¶9

4 - Manish Sharma S/o Om Prakash Sharma Aged About 30 Years

¶10

All residents of Bhaiji Garagewale, Sunder Nagar Raipur Road Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Applicants

¶12

versus

¶13

Arti Sharma W/o Rajesh Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o Baikunth, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondent

¶15

For Applicants : Mr.Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : None present

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

21/01/2025

1. Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. However, none appears on behalf of the respondent to press this revision.

¶21

2. The applicants have filed this revision with following prayer:“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order 20.12.2019 to the extent of granting Rs.35000/- from April 2019 to October 2019 and Rs.3000/- from December 2019 onwards to the respondent, in the interest of justice.”

¶22

3. Facts of the case are that applicant No.1-Rajesh Sharma and respondent Aarti Sharma got married according to the Hindu custom on 12.03.2018. Respondent Aarti Sharma filed a complaint in Mahila Thana, Raipur against the applicants that she is being subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and after the failure of counseling, on 08.09.2018 FIR was registered in Bemetara police station against the applicants under Section 498A/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and immediately after 2 days on 10.09.2018, Protection Officer, Women and Child Development Department submitted application before Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bemetara for providing maintenance and residence to the victim/respondent Aarti Sharma under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( for short ‘Act of 2005’) and a case was registered exercising powers U/S 9-B and 37(2)(C) of the Act of

¶23

¶24

2005 and U/s 18 & 19 of the Act of 2005 and ex-parte interim maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month was directed to be paid to respondent Aarti Sharma by the CJM, Bemetara and police station was directed for protection of the respondent.

¶25

4. On 03.11.2018 another application was filed that proper maintenance is not provided by the applicants and also submitted list of articles given at the time of marriage with prayer to return the same to the respondent. On 03.04.2019 another application filed by the respondent in City Kotwali, Bemetara alleging that bother-in-law Manish Sharma assaulted her, but after medical examination police find it case of no interference under Section 155 of the CrPC. Thereafter the respondent made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police and returned to her parental house. On 24.04.2019 the respondent again filed application before court that interim maintenance amount of Rs. 5000/- is not paid for 7 month and prayed for payment of Rs. 35000/-. The applicants also submitted application on 23.08.2019 mentioning that after order dated 10.09.2018 for providing residence to the respondent, the respondent is residing with applicant Rajesh Sharma in separate rented house from 16.09.2018 and the respondent herself left the house, on 03.04.2019 leaving behind infant daughter (about 2 moths) with applicant Rajesh Sharma. Applicant Rajesh Sharma is unemployed still somehow managing to take care of her daughter by doing occasional labor work whereas the respondent is law graduate and registered Advocate in Raipur District Bar

¶26

¶27

Association and practicing at Raipur District Court, therefore the interim maintenance granted on 10.09.2018 be kindly set aside or reduced, however the contention of the applicants was denied by the respondent. The Trial Court dismissed the application dated 23.08.2019 of the applicants by order dated 07.09.2019 and directed the applicants to pay interim maintenance of total Rs. 35000/- for seven months.

¶28

5. The applicants filed an appeal before Additional Session Judge, Bemetara, whereby submitted that 16.09.2018 to 03.04.2019 the respondent was residing with applicant No. 1 and complete expenses was borne by applicant No. 1, but the respondent had prayed for maintenance of that period also by suppressing the said facts. The trial Court failed to consider that the respondent had left her infant daughter committing cruelty with daughter therefore not entitled for any relief.

¶29

6. After hearing both the parties, the Additional Session Judge, Bemetara held that the trial Court have power to review its order under Section 25 of the Act of 2005 in view of change in circumstances and in view of the changing circumstances that the respondent residing with the applicants, bearing complete maintenance expenses from 16.09.2018 to 03.04.2019 and infant daughter is left by the respondent, however the Appellate Court directed the applicants to pay Rs. 35000/- to the respondent for April 2019 to October 2019 at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month

¶30

¶31

within 30 days & also directed to pay Rs.3000/- per month to the respondent from December 2019.

¶32

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 20.12.2019 is bad to the extent of granting Rs. 35000/- from April 2019 to October 2019 and Rs. 3000/- from December 2019 onwards to the respondent, therefore liable to be set aside. Applicant Rajesh Sharma is unemployed and other applicants have no responsibility to maintain the respondent under any provision of law. He further submits that the respondent had left her infant daughter with applicant Rajesh Sharma who is taking care of his daughter by doing occasional labor work. The respondent herself is law graduate duly registered with Raipur Bar Association and earning her livelihood by practicing in Raipur District Court whereas applicant Rajesh Sharma is unemployed. He also submits that without any reason, the respondent is residing separately, though separate house was arranged by applicant Rajesh Sharma and the appellate Court wrongly held that the change cannot be made in the maintenance amount from April 2019 even after finding change in the circumstances after April 2019. He contended that the respondent herself is treating her infant daughter with cruelty by leaving her in this tender age with his father when she badly need the mother. As such, the impugned order dated 20.12.2019 deserves to be set aside.

¶33

8. None present for the respondent when the case is called out for hearing.

¶34

¶35

9. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused

¶36

the impugned order.

¶37

10. On 08.01.2025 this Court passed the following order:-

¶38

“Heard Mr.Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners in CRR No.136/2020 and for respondent No.2 in CRR No.370/2021. Also heard Mr.Sudeep Johri, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRR No.370/2021 and for respondent in CRR No.136/2020 as wwell as Mr.Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 in CRR No.370/2021.

¶39

Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that though the mediation between the parties has failed, but they had used their good officers and an amicable settlement is likely to be arrived between the parties, hence, they wish some further time for getting the same in writing and pray for an adjournment.

¶40

Prayer is allowed.

¶41

List these matters on 21.01.2025.”

¶42

11. Mr.Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicants states that mediation could not be arrived inspite of good officers of two counsels.

¶43

12. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the appellate Court has held that the respondent is a practicing

¶44

¶45

Advocate in Raipur Bar Association. There is no information of separate and self-acquired property of the respondent’s husband Rajesh Sharma, all the properties are shown as belonging to the joint family. Rajesh Sharma does not have any assured income from any job. Therefore, with a view to ensure that there is no shortage in the expenditure on the daughter, it seems appropriate to make some reduction in the interim maintenance amount given to the respondent. If the circumstances change in future, the respondent can also apply under Section 25(2) of the Act of 2005. The respondent will also not object to any reduction made for her, but the request of the applicants that the order of granting interim relief should be completely cancelled cannot be accepted. Therefore, the appeal filed on behalf of the applicants is partly allowed and the order of the trial Court dated 7.9.2019 is set aside and applicant No.1-Rajesh Sharma is ordered to pay Rs.35,000/as lumpsum amount to the respondent within one month at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month from April, 2019 to October, 2019 and also directed to pay Rs.3000/- per month to the respondent from December, 2019.

¶46

13. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, perusing the order impugned and findings recorded by the appellate Court, we are of the considered opinion that the Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court.

¶47

¶48

14. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶49

Sd/- Sd/-

¶50

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶51

Bablu

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 20.12.2019 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara (first appellate court) partly allowing the applicants' appeal against the trial court order dated 07.09.2019: trial court order set aside; applicant No. 1 Rajesh Sharma directed to pay Rs.35,000 lumpsum within one month (at Rs.5,000 per month for April 2019 to October 2019) and Rs.3,000 per month from December 2019 to the respondent.¶12
Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara · 20.12.2019
Prior proceeding
Marriage of applicant No. 1 Rajesh Sharma and respondent Aarti Sharma according to Hindu custom on 12.03.2018.¶3
Prior proceeding
Respondent complained at Mahila Thana, Raipur of cruelty for dowry; after failure of counselling, FIR registered on 08.09.2018 at Bemetara police station against the applicants under Section 498A/34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.¶3
Prior proceeding
On 10.09.2018 (two days after the FIR) the Protection Officer, Women and Child Development Department applied to the CJM, Bemetara for maintenance and residence for the respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; case registered exercising powers under Sections 9-B, 37(2)(C), 18 and 19 of the Act.¶3
Prior proceeding
CJM, Bemetara directed ex-parte interim maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month to the respondent and directed the police station for her protection.¶3
Prior proceeding
On 03.04.2019 the respondent filed an application at City Kotwali, Bemetara alleging assault by brother-in-law Manish Sharma; after medical examination police found it a case of no interference under Section 155 CrPC.¶4
Prior proceeding
On 24.04.2019 the respondent applied to the court stating interim maintenance of Rs.5,000 was unpaid for 7 months and prayed for Rs.35,000.¶4
Prior proceeding
On 23.08.2019 the applicants applied to set aside or reduce the interim maintenance of 10.09.2018, pleading that the respondent lived with applicant No. 1 in a separate rented house from 16.09.2018 until she left on 03.04.2019 leaving the infant daughter; applicant No. 1 unemployed doing occasional labour, respondent a law graduate and registered advocate practising at Raipur.¶4
Prior proceeding
Trial Court dismissed the applicants' application dated 23.08.2019 by order dated 07.09.2019 and directed payment of interim maintenance totalling Rs.35,000 for seven months.¶4
Prior proceeding
Applicants appealed to the Additional Session Judge, Bemetara contending the respondent resided with applicant No. 1 from 16.09.2018 to 03.04.2019 at his expense yet claimed maintenance for that period by suppression, and that she left her infant daughter and so deserved no relief.¶5
Prior proceeding
By order dated 08.01.2025 this Court noted counsels' joint submission that mediation had failed but an amicable settlement was likely, and adjourned to 21.01.2025; on 21.01.2025 counsel for the applicants stated mediation could not materialise.¶11

Rajesh Sharma v. Arti Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Sharma v. Arti Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balram Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pramod Dansena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Siddharth Sarda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivshankar Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Matiyas @ Matiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh