Partly allowed¶¶28

Smt. Dhanmat Bai v. Rajkumar Banjara

Chhattisgarh HC16 Feb 2025CRR/221/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; CRR No. 221 of 2025; decided 17/02/2025 by Justice Arvind Kumar Verma; maintenance enhancement revision under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; against Family Court Mungeli order dated 23.01.2025 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 139/2023; maintenance raised from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- per month; respondent's income: driver Rs. 15,000/- p.m., 13 acres agricultural land and tractor Rs. 5 lakhs p.a., Ita Bhatta Rs. 1 lakh p.a.; filed under Section 19(4) Family Courts Act read with Sections 438 and 442 BNSS 2023; revision partly allowed and disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of maintenance payable by the respondent to the applicant from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- per month; revision disposed of. ¶¶28

Smt. Dhanmat Bai Vs Rajkumar Banjara — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enhancement of maintenance payable by the respondent to the applicant from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- per month; revision disposed of.

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month awarded to the applicant by the Family Court, Mungeli should be enhanced in view of the respondent's income and the prevailing price index.

¶¶21

Court's answer

The respondent has multiple sources of income - labour, agricultural work and employment as a driver - while the applicant/wife has no high source of income and is struggling to support herself.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

As the non-applicant is the husband of the applicant, it is his duty to maintain his legally wedded wife.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

Considering the facts of the case, the prevailing price index, the hike in value of commodities and the nature of the respondent's job, the respondent shall pay maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- per month to the applicant instead of Rs. 3,000/-.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision (CRR No. 221 of 2025) filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act read with Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023 by Smt. Dhanmat Bai against the order dated 23.01.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 139/2023 by the Family Court, Mungeli, which had partly allowed her Section 125 Cr.P.C. application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The applicant, whose first husband Mahendra Banjare died and who thereafter married the respondent (cousin brother of her late husband), sought enhancement, alleging that the respondent earns Rs. 15,000/- per month as a driver, holds 13 acres of agricultural land and a tractor yielding Rs. 5 lakhs per annum, and operates an Ita Bhatta earning Rs. 1 lakh per annum. Finding that the respondent has multiple sources of income while the applicant has none and that it is the husband's duty to maintain his legally wedded wife, and considering the prevailing price index and the hike in value of commodities, the High Court (Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) directed payment of maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- per month instead of Rs. 3,000/- and disposed of the revision as partly allowed (order dated 17/02/2025).

2025:CGHC:8227

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 221 of 2025

¶6

1 - Smt. Dhanmat Bai W/o Rajkumar Banjara Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Govindpur, Police Station- Lalpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) At Present R/o Village- Jhopadpatti, Deendayal Colony, District-Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

... Applicant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Rajkumar Banjara S/o Maniram Banjara Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Govindpur, Police Station- Lorami, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Applicant(s)	: Mr.	Resham Lal Jaiswal, Advocate
For Respondent(s)	:

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

17/02/2025

¶15

The present revision is filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act read with Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 against the impugned order dated 23.01.2025

¶16

¶17

passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 139/2023 by the learned Family Court, Mungeli, District-Mungeli (C.G.).

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Learned Family Court for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15000/- per month stating therein that her marriage was performed with Mahendra Banjare 13 years ago and out of their wedlock, three children were born. After 6 years of marriage, the husband of applicant namely Mahendra Banjare died and after his death, the children are living with their grandfather and grandmother. After 1 year of death of her husband, the marriage of the applicant was performed with the respondent who is the cousin brother of applicant’s husband namely Mahendra Banjare and since then the applicant and nonapplicant were living together as husband and wife. After living for sometime together, the respondent left the applicant and came to Bilaspur where he kept other lady as concubine and he is not giving single penny towards maintenance of applicant. The respondent is working as Driver and he is earning Rs. 15000/- per month. The non-applicant is also holding 13 acres of agricultural lands and one tractor thereby getting income of Rs. 5 lakhs per annum one tractor and he is also operation Ita Bhatta thereby earning Rs. 1 lakh per annum, whereas the applicant is a household lady and she has no source of income, therefore he filed application for grant of maintenance. After serving notice, the respondent filed reply, whereby denied the allegations, but

¶19

¶20

subsequently the respondent remained absent before the learned Family Court, therefore the learned Family Court has proceeded ex-parte against the non-applicant. After hearing both the parties, vide impugned order dated 23.01.2025 the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of applicant.

¶21

After considering the application and reply filed by both the parties and the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned family Court vide its order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure A-1) granted amount of Rs. 3000/- per month to the applicant, hence this revision is being filed for enhancement of maintenance amount.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant is working as Driver and he used to earn Rs. 15000/- per month. The respondent is also holding 13 acres of agricultural land and one tractor and getting income of Rs. 5 lakhs per annum and is also operating Ita Bhatta thereby earning Rs. 1 lakh per annum.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶24

Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicants and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned Family

¶25

¶26

Court has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant.

¶27

From perusal of records it is evident that the respondent has multiple source of income, i.e, labour, agricultural work, and is working as a driver. The learned Family Judge has awarded maintenance of Rs. 3000/- in favour of the applicant. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that applicant/wife has no high source of income and she is struggling to support herself, hence, the Family Court granted the maintenance to the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC, non-applicant is husband of applicant and it is his duty to maintain his legally wedded wife. Therefore, considering facts of the case and looking to the the price index which is prevailing in the society and hike in value of the commodities and nature of job of the respondent, it is directed that the respondent shall pay maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month to the applicant instead of Rs.3,000/-.

¶28

Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed and stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

JUDGE

Madhurima

Smt. Dhanmat Bai v. Rajkumar Banjara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dhanmat Bai v. Rajkumar Banjara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kush Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narayan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sakshi Dixit Vs Priyanshu Dixit

Anita Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anand Kombe Vs Smt. Kritika Kombe

Bharat Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh