Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh v. Rajendra Mourya S
Case Details
AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:28631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 246 of 2019 1 - Sulochana Panika W/o Shri Rajendra Mourya Aged About 36 Years Caste- Panika, R/o 56 Dafai, Near Shastriya School Khongapani, Police Station- Jhagarakhand, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
2 - Mousami Mourya D/o Shri Rajendra Mourya Aged About 6 Years Minor, Through Legal Guardian Mother Sulochana, Applicant No.1, Caste- Panika, R/o 56 Dafai, Near Shastriya School Khongapani, Police Station- Jhagarakhand, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Manavi Mourya D/o Shri Rajendra Mourya Aged About 4 Years Minor, Through Legal Guardian Mother Sulochana, Applicant No.1, Caste- Panika, R/o 56 Dafai, Near Shastriya School Khongapani, Police Station- Jhagarakhand, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Rajendra Mourya S/o Shri Baban Panika Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Lapari, Police Station- Sidhi, Tahsil- Jai Singh Nagar, District- Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh. ... Non-Applicant(s) 2 For Applicant(s) :Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Non-Applicant(s) :Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 01.11.2018 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District- Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 04/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants for grant of monthly maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the applicant No.1 and non-applicant (husband) was solemnized on 13-02-2009 and out of the wedlock, the applicants No.2 & 3 are the children. It was pleaded that as the applicant No.1 had given birth to a girl child hence she was subjected to harassment by the non-applicant and his family members. It was further alleged that she was subjected to assault and also the amount of Rs.2 lakhs was demanded by the husband. The matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken. It was stated that she was ousted on 14-08-2017 by force by the non-applicant and his relative. It was pleaded that the husband had source of income from agriculture and also Hotel Business, by which he earns Rs.30000/- as income. The non- applicant filed his written statement and denied the marriage with 3 the applicant No.1 and also denied the paternity of applicants No.2 and 3. It was pleaded that he already married one Shyama Mourya and out of wedlock, he has a girl child namely Kajal. It was pleaded that the applicant No.1 is married and her husband name is Dev Narayan, to which she is not divorced. It was pleaded that the applicant No.1 has her source of income by stitching. The learned Family Court after considering the evidence on record, passed the impugned order dated 01.11.2018, rejecting the application of the applicants holding that the applicant is not the legally wedded wife of non-applicant and further the applicant No.2 & 3 are not to be the children of non-applicant. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the order of the learned trial Court dated 01.11.2018 is illegal, not proper and therefore it is liable to be set-aside. The finding of the Family Court holding the applicant No.1 as not the wife of the non- applicant, is illegal and liable to be set-aside. Further, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the non-applicant while marry the applicant No.1 stated that he has divorced his first wife, hence by hiding the fact, he married to the applicant No.1 and to which the prove of marriage i.e. the agreement was filed by the applicant No.1 before the learned trial Court, which was not appreciated. The learned Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction holding that the applicants No.2 & 3 are not the children of the non-applicant in the proceeding of 125 of Cr.P.C. which is 4 summery in nature. The learned Family Court finding dispute of paternity of applicants No.2 & 3 with the non-applicant would have directed for DNA test. Lastly, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant No.1 was subjected to harassment for the reason that the applicant gave birth to girl child and the non-applicant desired boy child and for this reason she was ousted from the house by assault and abused and also failed to appreciate that the applicant produced public documents which are admissible in evidence and which shows the non-applicant as the husband of the applicant No.1 and father of the applicants No.2 & 3. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that, applicant No.1 is not the legally married wife of the non-applicant and it has not been established that applicants No.2 and 3 are legitimate or illegitimate children of non-applicant, in such a situation, the non- 5 applicant does not have the legal responsibility to maintain the applicants and by considering these facts, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sd/- Akhil