Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34096 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 443 of 2020 Shri Ajay Kumar Gyanchandani S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Gyanchandani, Aged About 38 Years R/o Hemucolony Chowk, Sindhi Colony, Gondia Maharashtra, Another Address- Maa Shakti Agency, Behind Vitthal Rukmani Mandir, Yadav Chowk, Gondia, Maharashtra............Applicant, District : Gondiya *, Maharashtra ... Petitioner(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Kiran @ Muskan W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Gyanchandani, D/o Shri Ghanshyam Das Kodavani Aged About 36 Years R/o Sector 4 House No. D 249, Devendranagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh............Non- Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ronik Kumar Gyanchandani S/o Shri Ajay Kumar Gyanchandani, Aged About 7 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kiran @ Muskan, R/o Sector 4 House No. D 249, Devendranagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.............Non-Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by learned 1st Additional Principal 2 Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.647/2017, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that on the second day of the marriage, the applicant's in-laws, Ashok Kumar Gyanchandani and Lata Gyanchandani, and her sister-in-law, Pooja, began mentally harassing her. Despite receiving approximately Rs.15 lakhs in cash and kind as dowry, the respondents and their family members were not satisfied. They would constantly taunt and belittle the applicant, comparing her dowry to that of the applicant's cousin-in-law's marriage. The applicant never had a peaceful life in her matrimonial home. The respondent would physically and verbally abuse her, and treat her with disrespect. He would follow his parents' instructions and never showed any affection towards the applicant. The respondent would demand money from her parents, threatening to treat her like a servant if his demands were not met. To expand his confessional business, the respondent, along with his mother and sister, would pressure the applicant to bring money from her parents for setting up a new factory. The applicant tried to save her marriage, hoping that the respondent's behavior would change, but he would humiliate her in front of neighbors and treat her with contempt. The applicant, Smt. Kiran alias Muskan, has 3 also averred that on July 28, 2016, her sister-in-law abused her parents, calling them names and threatening to kill her. The respondent's parents would say that they should kill her to end the daily drama. The applicant's life became unbearable in her matrimonial home, and she informed her parents about the incidents. Despite efforts to counsel the respondent and his family members, their behavior remained unchanged. The applicant then returned to her parental home in Raipur and filed a report at the Women Police Station, Raipur, on June 6, 2017. The applicant has further submitted that the respondent is engaged in a business partnership with his father and two brothers, earning more than Rs.3 lakhs per month, and he personally earns Rs.75,000 from the firm. The applicant has no source of income. Therefore, she has prayed for maintenance of Rs.25,000 per month from the respondent. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply denying the allegations alleged by the respondents. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in passing the order and mis-appreciated the terms of the meeting in the Panchayat between the applicant and respondent No. 1. In the Panchayat, the applicant showed willingness to live with the respondent and resume conjugal rights, 4 but respondent No. 1 refused to do so. It is the respondent who has repeatedly found ways to part ways with the applicant and leveled false allegations against him. However, the learned lower court failed to appreciate the merits of the case, showed undue sympathy towards the respondent, and passed an unreasonable order. He further submits that the Family Court erred in observing that the respondent wife's failure to file documents regarding the husband's payscale rendered the awarded maintenance amount excessive. The Family Court incorrectly assumed the applicant's income, stating he belongs to a poor family and earns only Rs.6,000-Rs.7,000 from his father's shop, estimating an annual income of Rs.80,000. He also submits that the respondent No. 1, during her cross-examination, admitted that she is unaware of her husband's income and that he assists in his father's shop. However, in her court statement (paragraph 19), she contradictorily stated that she owns the shop and her husband receives a salary from it. Further, she mentioned that her father- in-law bears her expenses and their son's expenditure, which indicates that the applicant has no independent source of income and is dependent on his father's earnings. The applicant resides in a joint family with the entire family relying on a single small shop. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family 5 Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing the evidence of the parties, it is clear that Ronik Kumar is a minor and naturally resides with his mother, Kiran, who lives separately from the respondent due to his cruel behavior. Ronik resides with his mother at his maternal grandparents' house. Thus, the applicants have justifiable reasons for living separately from the applicant / father. Furthermore, the evidence establishes that the applicant is a businessman, although his precise income remains uncertain. Given the respondent’s lack of income, the court considered its applicant obligations towards his wife and children, as well as the prevailing inflation rate, in determining the maintenance amount, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled to maintenance. 6. Considering the submissions 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 6 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil