Chattisgarh High Court
Ashok Sahu vs Smt Aabha Sahu 2 Cra/2018/1999 The State ... on 3 July, 2019
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No.1154 of 2018
Order Reserved on : 18.6.2019
Order Passed on : 3.7.2019
Ashok Sahu, aged about 45 years, S/o Shri J.P. Sahu, R/o House No.H 31,
Sector 2, Anand Vihar, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
versus
Smt. Aabha Sahu, aged about 40 years, W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Sahu, D/o
Shri K.R. Sahu, R/o Ashish Nagar, Paschim Risali, Bhilai, District Durg,
Chhattisgarh, Present Address : Through Damodar Prasad Sahu, Reddy
Colony, Subhash Nagar, Opposite to the house of Kailash Verma (Advocate),
Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicant : Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel C.A.V. ORDER
1. The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 12.9.2018 passed by the 1 st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in M.J.C. No.317 of 2015, whereby the Family Court has granted monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- in favour of the Respondent/wife.
2. Facts, in brief, are that marriage between the parties was solemnised at Bhilai on 18.4.2008. Before the Family Court, the Respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was pleaded by her that after the marriage, the Applicant/husband used to torture her for demand of dowry. Whenever she visited her maternal house, the 2 Applicant/husband asked her to bring money from her maternal house. It was further pleaded that her jethani (sister-in-law) Urmila also used to taunt her and she also used to prevent her from developing relationship of a husband and wife with the Applicant/husband. On 23.1.2015, the Applicant/husband, taking assistance of his bhabhi (sister-in-law), expelled her out of his house. Thereafter, she lodged a report under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code on 2.2.2015. She is unable to maintain herself. The Applicant/husband has sufficient means to maintain her.
3. The Applicant/husband, in his written statement, denied all the allegations made against him by the Respondent/wife. It was pleaded by him that the Respondent/wife herself did not want to live with him. She used to make false allegations on his bhabhi (sister-in-law). Virtually, when they started living at Kasdol, she did not want to reside there. Therefore and thereafter, she is residing separately from him at her own will without there being any reasonable cause. Hence, she is not entitled to get any maintenance.
4. Before the Family Court, the Respondent/wife examined herself and her jija (brother-in-law) Damodar Prasad. The Applicant/husband also examined himself and his elder brother Kamleshwar Prasad Sahu in his support. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing arguments on their behalf, the Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure moved by the Respondent/wife and granted her monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, the instant revision by the husband.
3
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/husband submitted that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record. The Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties and has mechanically passed the impugned order. From the evidence adduced by the parties and admissions made by the Respondent/wife, it is well established that she is residing separately from the Applicant/husband without any reasonable cause. Therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/wife supported the impugned order.
7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with due care.
8. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the parties was solemnised in the year 2008. It has been deposed by the Respondent/wife that the Applicant/husband used to make demands of Rs.20,000 - 30,000/- and she was fulfilling the demands by bringing the money from her maternal house. She has further deposed that her jethani (sister-in-law) Urmila was preventing her from developing relationship of a husband and wife with the Applicant/husband and the Applicant/husband used to listen and follow Urmila. Therefore, no relationship developed between her and the Applicant/husband for many years. Ultimately, on 23.1.2015, the Applicant/husband with the assistance of Urmila expelled her out of his house. Thereafter, she lodged the report of demand of dowry. In her cross-examination, she has admitted the fact that from 18.4.2008 to January, 2015, 4 she lived at Raipur in the house of her jeth (brother-in-law) Kamleshwar. She has also admitted the fact that she was living with her husband in that house in a separate room. She has also admitted the fact that upto a period of 7 years after the marriage, she did not lodge any report regarding demand of dowry. In paragraph 20 of her cross-examination, she has also admitted that in May, 2014, she was sent to Kasdol for living with the Applicant/husband. In paragraph 21 also, she has admitted that on 22.1.2015, she left the house of Kasdol saying that she does not want to live there. As deposed by her, her jethani Urmila had quarreled with her on phone and since Urmila had asked her to leave the house, she left the house of Kasdol. She has also admitted that on 23.1.2015 she left Kasdol and lodged the report of demand of dowry on 2.2.2015, i.e., after 9 days of her leaving the house of Kasdol. She has also admitted that on her complaint, she was inculcated at the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra three times, but all the times, she refused to live with the husband.
9. From the above admissions made by the Respondent/wife, it is clear that she lived with the Applicant/husband at Raipur in the house of her jeth (brother-in-law) Kamleshwar, but in a separate room for the period from 2008 to 2015. Therefore, the allegation of the Respondent/wife that her jethani (sister-in-law) Urmila used to prevent her from developing relationship of a husband and wife with the Applicant/husband is not acceptable. It is also established that the Applicant/husband and Respondent/wife went to Kasdol in May, 2014, but, thereafter, on 23.1.2015, the Respondent/wife herself left the house of Kasdol. Her statement that her jethani Urmila quarreled with her on phone on 21.1.2015 and asked her to 5 leave the house is also not acceptable. From the admission made by the Respondent/wife, it is also clear that she lodged the report of demand of dowry for the first time on 2.2.2015. Prior to that, she did not make any complaint nor did she call any social meeting. On 23.1.2015, when she left the house of Kasdol, why did she immediately not lodge a complaint, has not been explained by her. From the admission made by her, it is also clear that on the occasions of counseling at Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, she also refused three times to live with the Applicant/husband. From the entire evidence adduced by the parties, it is clear that there is no sufficient cause available to the Respondent/wife to reside separately from the Applicant/husband. Since it is established that the Respondent/wife is residing separately without any reasonable cause, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. Thus, I find that the finding arrived at by the Family Court is not in accordance with the evidence and law.
10. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.9.2018 is set aside.
11. Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel) JUDGE Gopal