Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. Sunil Lalchandani S
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:30968 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 455 of 2019 1 - Smt. Geet Lalchandani W/o Shri Sunil Chandani Aged About 39 Years R/o Gulab Nagar, Devpuri, Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Near Khursi Factoryraipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gurudas Panjwani S/o Sanjay Panjwani Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Geet Lalchandani R/o Gulab Nagar, Devpuri, Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Near Khursi Factoryraipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Sunil Lalchandani S/o Late Sajndas Lalchandani Aged About 43 Years R/o Sindhi Camp, Near Sai Mandir, Infront Of Dayal Das Gurudwara, District Satna Madhya Pradesh., District : Satna, Madhya Pradesh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Gagendra Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicants prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge family Court Raipur, District Raipur in Misc. Criminal case 2 no. 34/2018 and may also be granted the maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month sought by applicants in application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicants, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case are that the applicants have filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month for the applicants against the non-applicant before the learned Family Court Raipur. The applicant No. 1 was solemnized second marriage with the non-applicant according to Hindu Rites and Rituals Custom on 29.08.2017 at village Godadidham, Devpuri, District Raipur, meanwhile, they have executed their consent letter, wherein the non-applicant was accepted the applicant No. 2 as son and has taken care to the applicant No. 2 for livelihood and entitled for maintenance and before the said marriage, the applicant No. 1 has given divorce from first husband Sanjay Panjwani by order dated 12.02.2007 due to it is clearly intentionally between both of them. After some time of marriage, the non-applicant has demanded the finger golden and dowry from the applicants by beating and harassing, when non- applicant has approached the brother of the applicant No. 1 and also said that he has beating to the applicant No. 1 everyday if she did not give divorce and on 06.11.2017 the non-applicant came at Satna and he used to filthy language with the applicant No. 1 and committed marpeet to her, and also thrown out the article from the house, in this regard, the applicant No.1 has made complaint to the police station Satna against the non-applicant, but did not take any 3 action against the non-applicant due to political revelry, and thereafter, family member of the applicants and non-applicant are counseling to promise between both parties, in which, the non- applicant has done to keep the applicant No. 1 to live happily and the applicant No. 1 has made complaint to the police station Kolgawan, Satna against the family member of the non-applicant, and has also made complaint to Mahila Thana Raipur, in which, the non-applicant did not appear in counseling and the applicant is no source of income for livelihood and non-applicant is having a cloth shop at cloth market and he earns Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from his shop and hence the applicants had filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month for livelihood. 3. The non-applicant has filed reply and denied the all averment pleading in the application and he has never solemnized marriage with the applicant No. 1 and it is stated that he is having already three children and after death of his wife, he was kept take care of three children to the applicant No. 1. 4. The learned Family Court concerned considering the material available on record, passed the impugned order dated 13.02.2019 dismissed the application of the applicants on the ground that the applicant No.1 has married with non-applicant without getting divorced from her previous husband. Also, applicant No.2 is not a biological child of the non-applicant. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicants preferred the instant revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the impugned order 4 passed by learned the family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicants. The learned family Court has ignored that the applicant No. 1 was solemnized marriage with the non-applicant in presence of their family member on 29.08.2017 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals Custom at village Godadidham, Devpuri, District Raipur. He further submits that the learned family Court has failed to consider that one Amar Gidwani, son of late N. Gidwani, resident of Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur has executed afÏdavit an on 17.12.2018, wherein it is clearly stated that there is marriage solemnized between non-applicant and applicant No. 1 in presence of their relative members and their caste reputed persons on 29.08.2017. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that marriage and promise letter have been executed between the non-applicant and applicant No. 1 on 29.08.2017 in presence of witnesses, wherein it is clearly stated by the non-applicant that applicant No. 1 is legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and applicant No. 2 will be entitled to get benefit of share of all responsible activities as his son. The learned Family Court has failed to see that non-applicant without any sufÏcient reason left the applicants from the matrimonial house. The learned family Court has erred in granting decree of divorce in favour of non-applicant, without any proof of cruelty by the appellant. He also submits that the learned family Court has failed to consider that non-applicant is having a cloth shop at cloth market and he earns Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from his shop. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, illegal on all 5 counts, and is liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicants had filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking a monthly maintenance amount of ₹20,000/- from the non-applicant before the learned Family Court. After due appreciation of the evidence and documents brought on record by both parties, the learned Family Court rejected the application filed by the applicants on the ground that the applicant No.1 has married with non-applicant without getting divorced from her previous husband and also applicant No.2 is not a biological child of the non-applicant. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicants have failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Kunal Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice