Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:27761 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 229 of 2018 Manoj Kumar Tiwari S/o Gaukaran Tiwari ( G. P. Tiwari) Aged About 43 Years Driver Through Regd. D. R. D. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Civil Lines, Jabalpur M. P., District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Kumari Seema Tiwari D/o Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Mamta Tiwari, R/o Vikash Nagar, Kusmunda, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Mamta Tiwari D/o Devdutt Sharma R/o Vikash Nagar, Kusmunda, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants For Non-applicant : : Mr. Ganesh Burman, Advocate. Ms. Mamta Gendele, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ganesh Burman, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Mamta Gendele, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicants. By way of this revision petition, the applicant prayed for 2 following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set- aside the order dated 23.01.2018 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Presiding OfÏcer, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in Criminal M.J.C. Case No. 861/2017, in the interest of justice”. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants were getting maintenance amount of Rs. 1750 & 3000/- respectively (total Rs. 4750/-) from the applicant vide order dated 14.07.2009 passed by the learned Family Court Bilaspur in M.J.C. No. 27/2008. Thereafter, the matter was put up before the National Lok Adalat and with the consent of the parties an award was passed on 23.11.2013 holding that as per the mutual settlement between the parties, the applicant/non-applicant had paid a lump sum amount of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) by Demand Draft No. 569214 towards full and final settlement and subsistence for non- applicants No.01 and 02. Additionally, an amount of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) had paid by Term Deposit Receipt No. 388415 to non-applicant No.2 for her marriage expenses. The said amount, along with interest accrued thereon, shall be withdrawable by non-applicants at the time of the marriage of non-applicant No.02 upon her attaining majority. It has also been agreed between the parties that all other pending disputes and litigations between them shall be mutually withdrawn and treated as finally settled and accordingly, the case was disposed of in light of the aforesaid 3 settlement. Thereafter respondents had again moved an application for enhancement of maintenance amount under section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure on 13.11.2017 before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur. 3. After hearing the parties, learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and enhanced Rs. 1500/- per month towards maintenance. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently opposed the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed against him by the respondents on the ground that the award passed by National Lok Adalat has become final and binding between the parties, therefore, the application of respondent No. 1 is not maintainable. He further submits that the award of Lok Adalat was not challenged on any ground, therefore enhancing the amount of award is against the spirit of Lok Adalat. The learned Family Court committed illegality in enhancing the maintenance, despite the finalization of award of Lok Adalat. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal 4 revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 6000/-. After hearing both the parties, passed the judgment on 14.07.2009, whereby it has been directed the applicant to pay Rs. 4750/- towards maintenance amount to the non-applicants. Thereafter the matter was put up before National Lok Adalat and with the consent of the parties an award was passed on 23.11.2013 holding that as per the mutual settlement between the parties, the applicant/non- applicant had paid a lump sum amount of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) by Demand Draft No. 569214 towards full and final settlement and subsistence for non-applicants No.01 and 02. Additionally, an amount of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) had paid by Term Deposit Receipt No. 388415 to non-applicant No.2 for her marriage expenses. The said amount, along with interest accrued thereon, shall be withdrawable by non-applicants at the time of the marriage of non-applicant No.02 upon her attaining majority. It has also been agreed between the parties that all other pending disputes and litigations between them shall be mutually withdrawn and treated as finally settled and accordingly, the case
Decision
was disposed of in light of the aforesaid settlement. 8. Thereafter, the respondents had again moved an application for enhancement of maintenance amount under section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure on 13.11.2017 before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur. Upon appreciation of the facts, evidence and overall 5 circumstances, the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicants and enhanced the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 1500/- per month payable to non- applicant No.1, however there is no discussion made in respect of non-applicant No.1. 9. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment enhancing the amount of maintenance which is payable to daughter of the applicant. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal