Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. Shri Vicky Chejwani S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 84 of 2024 1. Smt. Pooja Chejwani W/o Vicky Chejwani Aged About 29 Years R/o C/3, Mahaveer Nagar, Suvidha Vihar, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Shubh Chejwani (Minor), S/o Vicky Chejwani Aged About 2 Years 7 months Through Legal Guardian - Mother Pooja Chejwani, R/o C/3, Mahaveer Nagar, Suvidha Vihar, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus
Legal Reasoning
Shri Vicky Chejwani S/o Shri Chandra Kumar Chejwani Aged About 35 Years R/o Pragati Vihar, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.07.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants on I.A. No. 01 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing revision petiton. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, I am of the considered opinion that sufÏcient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I. A. No. 01 of 2024 is allowed and delay of 328 days in filing the revision is ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.29 19:34:32 +0530 2 condoned. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant appeal setting aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Family Court, Raipur and directing the respondent to make the adequate payments.” 4. Facts of the case are that the present Applicants had preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court, Raipur, which was registered as M.C.C. No. 375/2021. A copy of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is filed herewith as Annexure A/2. The applicant No. 01 got married to the respondent on 11.12.2020 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Hotel Arena Boutique, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.), after having known each other for almost 7–8 years prior to their marriage. It was the respondent who proposed to applicant No. 1 for marriage, and when the family members of both parties met, the respondent and his family members gave the impression that they did not want any dowry and only desired an educated daughter-in-law. However, as soon as the marriage was fixed, the respondent’s family started demanding money in the form of dowry. In order to avoid any kind of social embarrassment, the father of applicant No. 1 fulfilled their demands and gave goods and cash beyond his financial capacity. After the solemnize of marriage, the respondent’s family members continuously abused applicant No. 1, stating that there was no benefit in their son marrying her, and that she was unable to provide any satisfaction to the respondent. They pressured the 3 respondent to leave the applicant No. 01 and marry someone else. Thereafter, the respondent began pressuring the applicant No. 01 for divorce, and upon her refusal, he verbally abused and physically assaulted her under the influence of alcohol. Due to the continuous abuse and threats by the respondent and his family members, the applicant No. 01 was forced to leave her matrimonial home and is currently residing with her parents. When the harassment by the respondent and his family members crossed all limits of tolerance, the applicant No. 01 lodged a written complaint regarding the incident at the Women’s Police Station, Raipur on 01.02.2021. A child was born out of the wedlock on 06.05.2021 at Sai Baba Nursing Home, Raipur. The applicant No. 01 is a homemaker and has no independent source of income. Furthermore, the respondent has never provided her with any financial assistance after she left the matrimonial house. 5. Subsequently, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Raipur, seeking a maintenance allowance of Rs. 40,000/- (Forty Thousand) per month. The application was partly allowed, and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Criminal M.C.C. No. 357/2021, granted maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- (Twelve Thousand) per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- (Three Thousand) per month to applicant No. 2. 6. The respondent is a builder by profession and is financially well-off, earning more than Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) per month. In contrast, the applicant No. 01 has no income and is solely responsible for the upkeep of herself and her 2.5-year-old child. Therefore, being unable to sustain herself and her child with the maintenance granted by the learned Family Court, the applicants have preferred the present criminal revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court 4 failed to consider the fact that the applicants do not have any independent source of income sufÏcient for their sustenance. Learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence and arguments advanced by both parties, observed that the respondent is a resourceful person and earns sufÏciently to maintain the applicants. However, despite making such an observation, the learned Family Court granted only Rs. 15,000/- as maintenance allowance, whereas the applicants had prayed for Rs. 40,000/-. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that applicant No. 2 is a growing child of tender age who requires special care, protection, and nutrition. Hence, the maintenance allowance granted is unreasonably low and inadequate for their needs. The wife has a right to enjoy the same standard of living as her husband. In the present case, the husband of the applicant, being a resourceful person with sufÏcient means, is legally and morally bound to provide a similar standard of living to his wife and child. He also submits that the respondent has not paid the maintenance allowance to the applicants for several months. Moreover, he has also abstained from appearing in the proceedings initiated by himself under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which reflects his ill intentions and lack of responsibility towards the Appellants. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has awarded maintenance of 5 Rs. 12000/- to the applicant No. 01 and Rs. 3000/- to the applicant No. 02, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek