Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh v. Neha Tiwari Wd
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36865 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 400 of 2024 1 - Gyanti Tiwari Wd/o Late Ghyanshyam Tiwari @ Ghanshyam Tiwari Aged About 46 Years R/o Police Line, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 - Preeti Tiwari D/o Late Ghyanshyam Tiwari @ Ghanshyam Tiwari Aged About 20 Years R/o Police Line, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Neha Tiwari Wd/o Late Avinash Tiwari Aged About 22 Years R/o Near Police Control Rom (Dhorpur House), Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Ms. Shatabdi Bagchi, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. Shatabdi Bagchi, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision petition, the applicants have prayed for following reliefs:- 1 “It is, therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly 2 be pleased to Call for the entire records from the court below. 2. It is, therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Set-aside the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 (ANNEXURE A-1), passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 121/2022, in the interest of justice. 3. It is, therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application filed by the applicants for grant of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month (For each applicants) from the Non-applicant, in the interest of justice, 4. It is, therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to any other relief, as the Hon'ble Court just think and fit be passed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Non-applicant was granted compassionate appointment in the Department of Home Affairs (Police), because the husband of Applicant No.01 as Police namely Ghanshyam Tiwari was working Constable at Ambikapur who died in harness 18.03.2001. (Copy of the death certificate is filed herewith as ANNEXURE A-2). After the death of Ghanshyam, his son namely Avinash Tiwari was granted compassionate appointment as 'Baal Arakshak' on 04.02.2006, as at the time of death of Ghanshyam Tiwari, Avinash Tiwari was minor. Thereafter Avinash Tiwari was given regular appointment on the post of 3 Constable after attaining majority on 04.08.2017. After the death of Ghanshyam Tiwari, applicant No.01 has filed dependency for getting documents before the authorities compassionate appointment in favour of Avinash Tiwari as Baal Arakshak. Unfortunately, Avinash Tiwari was also died on 26.12.2021. After his death, with the consent of applicants, Non-applicant (Widow of Avinash Tiwari) was provided compassionate appointment (Annexure A-7), wherein the Non-applicant made a Rules of per as on 08.03.2022 the compassionate undertaking appointment (Which is available in the OfÏce of SP, Sarguja), before the authority that she will take care of her mother in law namely Gyanti Tiwari and also will take care of her unmarried sister in law (Nanad) but as soon as the Non-applicant got compassionate appointment she has started ill-treatment with the applicants and has refused to take care of the applicants. It is further submitted that the documents, which have been annexed as Annexure A-2 to A-7 are undisputed documents. Apart from this, the Non-applicant is not giving financial assistance to the applicants, therefore the applicants had constrained to file an application for grant of maintenance. Apart from this, the Non-applicant driven the present applicants and refused to maintain them. The applicants are unable to maintain themselves, therefore they moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 30.06.2022 before the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, sought maintenance amount from the non-applicant. 4. After considering the pleadings and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, upon due appreciation of the facts and 4 evidence placed on record, rejected the application of the applicants by applying the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs State of Gujarat and another, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 479", and also on the ground that the applicant is getting pension of Rs. 6000/- pm on account of death of her husband Ghanshyam Tiwari. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the learned Family Court has committed error of law in holding that the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs State of Gujarat and another, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 479", which is not applicable in the present case, as the above mentioned case, the applicant was step mother, whereas in the instant case the applicant No.01 is mother-in-law, who is natural mother of husband of the Non-applicant (Namely Avinash Tiwari) and genesis of compassionate appointment of Avinash Tiwari is arose on account of his father Ghanshyam Tiwari (Husband of the applicant No.01), therefore the Non-applicant cannot deny the maintenance of applicants, therefore very face of record it appeared that the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal and incorrect, which is liable to be set-aside. He further submits that the learned Family Court also committed error of law in holding that the Applicant No.01 is getting pension on account of death of her husband (Ghanshyam Tiwari – father in law of Non-Applicant). On this ground, the application for grant of maintenance cannot be denied. He further submits that the applicants are unable to 5 maintain themselves and the Non-applicant is getting handsome salary and she has already given undertaking at the time of grant of compassionate appointment, which is being violated by the Non- applicant, this very fact has not been considered by the Family Court. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants, who are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the non-applicant respectively before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount from the non-applicant. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 19.02.2024, whereby rejected the application of the applicants and applying the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs State of Gujarat and another, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 479", and also on the ground that the applicant No.1 is getting pension of Rs. 6000/- per month on account of death of her husband Ghanshyam Tiwari. 6 9. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned order. No interference is called for. The applicants have failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. 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 Kunal