AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Dr. Ravishanker Gaiyakwad S/o Makhanlal v. 1 - Minor Kumari Karuna D/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31331 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1567 of 2019 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Dr. Ravishanker Gaiyakwad S/o Makhanlal Gaiyakwad Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Sanva, Post Office Sargaon, Thana And Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant(s) versus 1 - Minor Kumari Karuna D/o Dr. Ravishanker Gaiyakwad Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Mother Sushila Gaiyakwad, W/o Dr. Ravi Shanker Gaiyakwad, R/o Village Limtara, Post Office Vishrampuri, Thana And Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Kumari Kajal D/o Dr. Ravishanker Gaiyakwad Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Mother Sushila Gaiyakwad, W/o Dr. Ravi Shanker Gaiyakwad, R/o Village Limtara, Post Office Vishrampuri, Thana And Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate CRR No. 345 of 2023 1 - Sushila Gayakwad Wife Of Dr. Ravishankar Gayakwad, Aged About 28 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Sushila Gayakwad, W/o. 2 Dr. Ravishankar Gayakwad. All Are Resident Of Village - Limtara, Post Office - Vishrampur, Police Station And Tahsil-Simga, District - Baldabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Karuna, D/o. Ravishankar Gayakwad, Aged About 2 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Sushila Gayakwad, W/o. Dr. Ravishankar Gayakwad. All Are Resident Of Village - Limtara, Post Office - Vishrampur, Police Station And Tahsil-Simga, District - Baldabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Kajal, Son Of Ravishankar Gayakwad, Aged About 2 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Sushila Gayakwad, W/o. Dr. Ravishankar Gayakwad. All Are Resident Of Village - Limtara, Post Office - Vishrampur, Police Station And Tahsil-Simga, District - Baldabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ---Applicant(s) Versus Dr. Ravishankar Gayakwad, Son Of Makhanlal Gayakwad, Aged About 33 Years R/o. Village Sanwa, Post-Sargaon, Police Station And Tahsil - Patharia, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. The applicants have filed these criminal revisions against the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Family Court, District- Balodabazar (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.379/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the 3 application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants in Sushila Gayakwad, Ku. Karuna and Ku. Kajal and granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each to applicants namely Ku. Karuna and Ku. Kajal. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants Dr. Ravishanker Gaiyakwad and Sushila Gayakwad are legally wedded husband & wife and their marriage was on 30.04.2015 according to Hindu rites and rituals and out of their wedlock, applicants namely Ku. Karuna and Ku. Kajal were born. The wife/Sushila Gayakwad filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, stating therein that after marriage, she went to the house of Dr. Ravishanker Gaiyakwad/husband for performing matrimonial obligations, but after sometime of marriage, he used to give cruel and ill- treatment to her. Meantime, Sushila Gayakwad has delivered twins daughters and after delivery of daughters, Dr. Ravishanker Gaiyakwad/husband used to beat her by saying that she has delivered female child and ousted her from the matrimonial house, due to which, she is living separately. 3. After hearing both the parties, vide impugned order dated 20.11.2019, the learned Family Court has allowed maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2000-2000/- per month in favour of applicants namely, Ku. Karuna and Ku. Kajal, however rejected the application in respect of Sushila Gayakwad/wife by holding that the she is living separately without any reasonable cause. Being 4 aggrieved by the said impugned order, the applicants herein have preferred this present revision. 4. Learned counsel for applicants, namely, Sushila Gaiyakwad and her minor daughters in CRR No. 345/2023 submits that the learned Family Court has erred in holding that the applicant no. 1 is living separately without any reasonable cause, therefore she is not entitled to get maintenance and has failed to appreciate that the applicant No. 1 is a lady and she has no source of income. Further, the non-applicant is practicing as doctor and earning Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. The applicant No. 1 was subjected to cruelty by the non-applicant while she was living in her matrimonial house and ultimately she was ousted from the matrimonial house. The applicants No. 2 & 3 are school growing children and they require books, school fees, uniform etc. which are not possible in the maintenance allowed in their favour. The maintenance awarded in favour of applicants No. 2 & 3 is on lower side, looking to present scenario of the society and the same is liable to be enhanced. Further, the applicant No. 1 being legally wedded wife of non-applicant is entitled to get maintenance from the non-applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant namely Dr. Ravishankar Gayakwad in CRR No. 1567/2019 submits that the order of learned Family Court is bad on facts as well as on law. He further submits that earlier the applicant was doing job of Doctor, but after the policy of the Govt., his clinic had been closed and at 5 present he is unemployed and depends on father's family pension. It is clear that Sushila herself was negligent and had not performed the material duties and applicant had no source of income to grant the maintenance to the non-applicants, in spite of that, learned Family Court granted the maintenance to them which is an illegal and unsustainable under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants, namely Sushila Gayakwad, Ku. Karuna and Ku. Kajal and has granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each to applicants- Ku. Karuna and Ku. Kajal observing that applicant Sushila Gayakwad is living separately voluntarily without any sufficient cause, hence she is no entitled for grant of maintenance and further since Ku.Karuna and Ku.Kajal are daughters of non-applicant/Dr. Ravishankar Gayakwad, as such, looking to the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month to each of them was awarded, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding 6 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sd/- Akhil