Chaitram Sahu vs Smt. Devsir Sahu

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRR No. 615 of 2022

 Chaitram Sahu S/o Shri Bhagol Sahu, Aged About 47 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Bhothidih, Post Bhurka, P.S. Gobra Nawapara, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

 Smt. Devsir Sahu W/o Chaitram Sahu, Aged About 38 Years C/o. House Of Chhotu Sahu, Behind Durga Mandir, Maulipara, Tehlibandha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

For Applicant Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order On Board 15/11/2022

1. This petition has been preferred against the order dated

19.4.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur

(CG), in Criminal MCC No.425/2021, whereby, the Family Court

has allowed an application for grant of interim maintenance @

Rs.4000/- per month to the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant-husband would submit that

the present applicant is a labour. The respondent, without any

reasonable reason, has left the matrimonial house. The

respondent-wife had never complained about her husband to 2

any of her relatives. He submits that the applicant has tried his

best to reconcile with the respondent but he failed. The interim

maintenance fixed by the trial Court is on higher side, therefore,

learned counsel pays for modification of the impugned order.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-wife would

support the impugned order and submit that the same is well-

merited, which does not call for any interference.

4. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and

also perused the documents annexed along with the revision

petition.

5. Learned Family Court considering the fact that the

wife/respondent was in live-in relationship with the applicant

since the year 2017 and after considering the financial status of

the parties, awarded interim maintenance @ Rs.4000/- per

month.

6. In the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC

324, it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that strict

proof of marriage is not necessary for grant of maintenance. A

broad and expansive interpretation must be given to the term

"wife," to include even those cases where a man and woman

have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably

long period of time. The following was held in para 39 by their

Lordships :

39. The issue whether presumption of marriage arises when parties are in a live-in-relationship 3

for a long period of time, which would give rise to a claim under Section 125 of CrPC came up for consideration in .Chanmuniya v Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr. before the Supreme Court. It was held that where a man and a woman have cohabited for a long period of time, in the absence of legal necessities of a valid marriage, such a woman would be enti-

tled to maintenance. A man should not be al- lowed to benefit from legal loopholes, by en- joying the advantages of a de facto marriage, without undertaking the duties and obligations of such marriage. A broad and expansive inter- pretation must be given to the term "wife," to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time. Strict proof of marriage should not be a pre- condition for grant of maintenance under Sec- tion 125 of Cr.P.C. The Court relied on the Malimath Committee Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System Published in 2003, which recommended that evidence regarding a man and woman living together for a reason- ably long period, should be sufficient to draw the presumption of marriage.

7. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme

Court as also after the examining the facts of the present case,

this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order

passed by the Family Court, which is well merited and does not

call for any interference.

8. The revision being bereft of merits is liable to be and is hereby

dismissed. Sd/-

( Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

Shyna