Chattisgarh High Court
Devki Bai Kaushik vs Balak Das on 21 March, 2024
Page No.1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 326 of 2016
• Devki Bai Kaushik W/o - Balak Ram Kaushik Aged About 45 Years
R/o - Village Gochhiya P.S. And Tahsil - Sahaspur Lohara, District -
Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o - Village - Bazar -
Charbhantha, Tahsil - Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabirdham
Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
• Balak Das S/o - Ubheram Aged About 50 Years R/o - Village
Gochhiya P.S. And Tahsil - Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabirdham
Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent/Non-applicant
_____________________________________________________________
For Applicant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate.
For Respondents ; Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.B.:Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 21/03/2024
1. This revision is filed challenging the order dated 17.12.20215 (Annexure-A/1) passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.423/2015 whereby learned Family Court, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham has dismissed the application filed under Section 125 of CrPC by the applicant.
2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is legally wedded wife of the non-applicant. After some time of marriage, non-applicant ousted her from matrimonial home and since then she is living separately. Since the non-applicant refused to maintain her, applicant filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC, seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned Court below rejected the application on the ground that it is not proved that the applicant is not able to maintain herself, which is erroneous in view of the pleadings in Page No.2 the application as also the evidence brought on record by the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the non-applicant would submits that after receipt of notice of application under Section 125 of CrPC, non-applicant submitted reply stating therein that the applicant is residing with her son. He became disabled as he suffered paralysis attack and further, that the applicant is residing separately since last about 25 years. Non- applicant himself is not able to maintain himself. It is also contention of counsel for non-applicant that in the evidence, the applicant admitted that the non-applicant became disabled due to paralysis attack, therefore, there is no error in the finding recorded by the learned Family Court while disposing of the application filed under Section 125 of CrPC by impugned order.
4. I have head learned counsel for applicant and perused the record of criminal revision as also record of learned Family Court.
5. Perusal of the application filed under Section 125 of CrPC would show that on the date of filing application under Section 125 CrPC, age of the applicant is 45 years and non-applicant is 50 years. Further, there is pleading that, from their wedlock, they were blessed with a son namely-Lakheshwar. In the application, it is also pleaded that non- applicant is having 6.346 hectares of land recorded in his name and his father's name. The pleading made in the application under Section 125 of CrPC, was denied by non-applicant in reply thereto. In para-2 of the reply, it is stated that after taking community divorce, the applicant is residing separately since last 25 years. Applicant has already taken 25 decimal of land from the non-applicant. He suffered paralysis, his hands and legs became week due to paralysis. Further, the applicant is residing with her son. Before the trial Court, the applicant has Page No.3 submitted her examination-in-chief in the shape of an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 pleading that the non-applicant is in possession of 15-16 acres of agricultural land and earning Rs.10-12 lakh per month. However in support of this evidence/statement, no supporting document is filed. In para-13 of the cross-examination he admitted that as on date the non-applicant is disabled, he suffered paralysis and the left side of body of non- applicant is affected with the paralysis. However, she denied that the applicant gave 25 decimal land. AW-2 examined on behalf of applicant also admitted that non-applicant is not healthy, his left part of the body is suffering with paralysis. Non-applicant examined himself as NAW-1 and stated that he is disabled, he suffered paralysis attack on his hands and legs. Applicant is able to maintain herself. It is denied that the non-applicant is in possession of 12-13 acres of agricultural land. NAW-2 also supported the version of the non-applicant as he suffered paralysis due to which non-applicant became weak and further that in the family of the non-applicant they were having 6 acres of land over which three brothers were doing the agricultural activities. The applicant in para-13 of her cross-examination have further stated that she will help the non-applicant in his treatment.
6. From the aforesaid discussions and evidence available in record, it is appearing that non-applicant suffered paralysis attack affecting his left part of the body, and it is not denied by applicant that non-applicant has become disabled. Applicant could not able to prove the pleading that non-applicant is having 12-13 acres by producing admissible documentary evidence in this regard and further the applicant in her evidence has admitted that she stated to non-applicant that she will help in his treatment.
Page No.4
7. Thus, it is clear that the applicant failed to prove that the non-applicant is a healthy and abled persons having sufficient means to maintain the applicant. Infact from the evidence it is reflecting that the non-applicant became disabled after he suffered paralysis attack.
8. For the forgoing discussions, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned Family Court rejecting the application for grant of maintenance filed under Section 125 of CrPC.
9. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Nisha Judge