Dismissed¶¶27

Ashwani Banjare v. Smt. Geetanjali Banjare

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jan 2025CRR/66/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ashwani Banjare v. Smt. Geetanjali Banjare & Anr., CRR No. 66 of 2025, High Court of Chhattisgargh at Bilaspur, order dated 15/01/2025 (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) — maintenance revision under Section 19(4) Family Courts Act, 1984 with Section 397/401 CrPC against interim maintenance order dated 04.10.2024 in MJC No.680/2024 (Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur) under Section 125 CrPC awarding Rs.10,000/- p.m. to wife and Rs.5,000/- to minor daughter (total Rs.15,000/-) against a Rs 50,000/- claim; husband's income Rs.65,000/- p.m.; no illegality/infirmity found; revision dismissed. No precedent cases cited.

What did the court decide?

None to the applicant; the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 stands upheld and the criminal revision was dismissed and disposed of as devoid of merit. ¶¶27

Ashwani Banjare Vs Smt. Geetanjali Banjare — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the applicant; the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 stands upheld and the criminal revision was dismissed and disposed of as devoid of merit.

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in MJC No.680/2024, awarding Rs.10,000/- monthly (interim) maintenance to respondent No.1 (wife) under Section 125 CrPC, should be quashed in this criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397/401 CrPC.

¶¶22

Court's answer

The learned Family Court discussed the relevant factors while arriving at its finding; the parties married per custom, the respondent had to reside separately due to harassment, faced hardship and was unable to maintain herself, and the respondents had been living separately after being deserted — hence the Family Court rightly determined the amount of maintenance.

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

In the opinion of this Court there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure A-6) passed by the Family Court, Raipur (C.G.).

¶¶26

Key takeaways

The applicant is the husband of respondent No.1 and has to pay the maintenance amount as awarded by the Family Court; the record shows he is a Government Teacher with monthly income of Rs.65,000/- while the wife earns Rs.10,000/- per month, gets Rs.3,000/- from a Government scheme and runs a grocery shop.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), CRR No. 66 of 2025, decided 15/01/2025 by Arvind Kumar Verma, J. — Criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 of CrPC by the husband (a Government Teacher drawing Rs.65,000/- per month) against the order dated 04.10.2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in MJC No.680/2024, which partly allowed the wife's application under Section 125 CrPC by awarding interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to her and Rs.5,000/- to the minor daughter (total Rs.15,000/-), against a claim of Rs 50,000/- per month. The Court noted that the Family Court had examined the record, that the wife earned Rs.10,000/- per month, received Rs.3,000/- under a Government scheme and ran a grocery shop, that the respondents had been living separately after being deserted and were unable to maintain themselves, and held that the Family Court had rightly determined the maintenance amount and that there was no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order. The revision was dismissed and disposed of as devoid of merit. (Per the Family Court's order, no finding was made on the merits of cruelty and the applicant's income, that adjudication remaining open.)

2025:CGHC:2521

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 66 of 2025

¶6

Ashwani Banjare S/o Shri Bisheshwar Banjare Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kareli Patelpara, Police Station Bori, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg C.G. (Wrongly Mentioned In The Cause Title Of Certified Copy Of Impugned Order As Madho Prasad Sahu Aged About 35 Years S/o Shri Jilal Sahu R/o Village Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.).

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Smt. Geetanjali Banjare W/o Ashwani Banjare Aged About 30 Years,

¶10

2 - Ku. Nishtha Banjare D/o Ashwani Banjare Aged About 07 Years MinorThrough Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Geetanjali Banjar,

¶11

Both are R/o Ward No. 12 Rajim Police Station And Tehsil Rajim District Gariaband (C.G.) Currently Residing Smt. Pratibha Kaushal Behind New Puraina Church, Rani Durgavati Ward No. 50 Raipur (C.G.).

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

(Cause title is taken from the CIS)

¶14

For Applicant : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board

15/01/2025

Heard.

This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 of CrPC being aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in MJC No.680/2024 (Annexure A-6), whereby the application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance filed by the non-applicants has been partly allowed, so far as it relates to the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the non-applicant No.1/respondent No.1-wife.

¶20

Brief facts of this case are that the present non-applicants have filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Raipur to get the monthly maintenance amounting to Rs 50,000/- (Rs.30,000/- to applicant No.1/wife and Rs.20,000/- to applicant No.2/ daughter) from the present applicant stating inter alia that marriage between applicant and non-applicant was solemnized on 04/06/2015 according to Hindu customs in Rajim, District Gariaband (C.G.) and from their wedlock Ku. Nishtha Banjare (applicant No.2) was born on 12/08/2016. After examination of evidence, the learned Family Court finds that, no order can be passed on the merits of cruelty and income of the applicant herein. The Respondents are the wife and daughter of the applicant, whose maintenance is the responsibility of the applicant. Therefore, the application of the respondents for interim maintenance is partially accepted and it is ordered that the applicant pays Rs.10,000/- to Non-applicant No.1 and Rs.5,000/- to Nonapplicant No.2 (Total Rs.15,000/-). Hence, this revision.

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order of the learned Principal Judge of Family Court is based on the concocted and false story of the non-applicant No.1/wife. He further contended that all the allegations leveled by the non- applicant/wife against the present applicant is common in nature and without any documentary evidence. He further contended that the impugned order of monthly maintenance Rs.10,000/- to non-applicant No.1/wife is illogic and if this Hon'ble Court not set aside the impugned order and allowed it to stand it would cause irreparable loss/ injury to this applicant and miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is prayed that pleased to allow the instant petition and quash the impugned order dated 04/10/2024 (Annexure A-6) so far it relates to the maintenance amount Rs.10,000/- to the non-applicant No.1/wife, in the interest of justice.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶24

From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that the applicant is a Government Teacher and his monthly income is Rs.65,000/- per month and wife of the applicant is a tutor and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, Rs.3,000/- get from the Government scheme and running a grocery shop and she is struggling to support herself, hence, the Family Court awarded the maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, applicant is husband of the respondent No.1, has to pay the said maintenance amount as awarded by the Family Court.

¶25

¶26

Further, on perusal of the order under challenge, it is evident that the learned Family Court has discussed the factors while arriving at a finding is just and proper. From perusal of the same, it is evident that the applicant and respondent were married according to their customs and due to the harassment by the applicant, respondent had to reside separately. Thereafter, she is facing great hardships and is unable to maintain herself. The respondents have been living separately from the applicant after they were deserted and hence, the learned Family Court has rightly determined the amount of maintenance to the respondents, therefore, in the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure A-6) passed by the Family Court, Raipur (C.G.).

¶27

Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed and stands disposed of.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶30

Vasant

Ashwani Banjare v. Smt. Geetanjali Banjare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwani Banjare v. Smt. Geetanjali Banjare

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

Ashish Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Sinha @ Babu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivram Muriya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nirdosh Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Junaid Meman Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Zeenat Parveen Vs Mirza Zeeshan Baig