Jayprakash Kesharwani S/o Late Sh. Murli Prasad Kesharwani Aged About 40 Years R/o Rani v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32310 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 521 of 2024 Jayprakash Kesharwani S/o Late Sh. Murli Prasad Kesharwani Aged About 40 Years R/o Rani Road Dewangan Para, Champa, Thana And Tahsil Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Shraddha Kesharwani W/o Shri Jayprakash Kesharwani Aged About 29 Years R/o Rani Road Dewanganpara Champa, Present Residence Bhoghapara, Mandir Road, Shivrinarayan, Thana Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Nawagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shrajay Keshwarwani S/o Jayprakash Kesharwani Aged About 6
Legal Reasoning
Years Minor, Hence Through His Natural Guardian And Mother, Smt. Shraddha Kesharwani, R/o Rani Road Dewanganpara Champa, Present Residence Bhoghapara, Mandir Road, Shivrinarayan, Thana Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Nawagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Bhuvneshwar Singh Rajput, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Yuvraj Singh Chandel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.07.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Bhuvneshwar Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Yuvraj singh Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.15 11:12:39 +0530 2 “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned judgment dated 03.04.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that both the parties of the present case are Hindus by religion. Their marriage was solemnized on 27.11.2015 as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of their wedlock, a son namely Shrajay Kesharwani (non-applicant No. 2) was born on 08.03.2017. From the very beginning of the marriage, the conduct of the present applicant (husband) was inappropriate. He constantly doubted the character of Non-applicant No. 1 (wife) and used to mentally harass her, refusing to let her visit her parental home. After the birth of the child (non-applicant No. 2), the applicant’s behavior worsened, and he allegedly sold her ornaments secretly. On 24.06.2019, the applicant assaulted and abused the non-applicant (wife), denied the paternity of the child, and subsequently deserted both of them. When the non-applicant No.1 called her father for help, the applicant also abused and physically assaulted him. That ever since the applicant was forced to live separately, the non- applicants have neither made any effort to bring them back nor provided any financial support to her or the children, despite having sufÏcient means and income. The applicant is unable to maintain herself and the minor son as she has no independent source of income or sufÏcient means of livelihood. Thereafter, the non- applicants (wife and minor son) filed an application under Section 3 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), seeking maintenance from the present applicant (husband). The present applicant submitted his reply before the learned Family Court, categorically denying all the allegations levelled by the non- applicants. 4. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 03.04.2024, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 4000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2/son as amount of maintenance (total 10,000/-) from the date of filing of application and further ordered to bear Rs. 1000/- for expenses of the proceeding. Hence this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has completely ignored and failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidences placed before it by the present applicant and therefore, the impugned order of maintenance dated 03.04.2024 is suffers from vice of perversity. He further submits that the non-applicant has left matrimonial house with her own will and refused to live with her husband without any sufÏcient reason and for this reason she is not entitled for any maintenance in accordance with section 125 (4) of the CR.P.C. He further submits that the learned Family Court has completely ignored this fact that the non- applicant No. 1 was agreed for divorce with mutual consent before the State Woman Commission as well as before the counselor of 4 learned Family Court, which is evident from the Counselor's Report dated 03.06.2022 of the learned Family Court, but later on she denied. Looking to the false allegations and rude behavior of the Non-applicant No. 1, it appears that she doesn't like the applicant and for this reason she wants to be separated with the applicant on the pretext of false allegations. In fact the present applicant has been subjected to cruelty by his wife/non-applicant No. 1. The Non- applicant No. 1 has categorically admitted in para 10 of her cross examination that she lived with the applicant for 3 years and it is true that during this three years she never made any complaint against the applicant for any demand of dowry and she has also denied this suggestion that at very first night of marriage she was making objectionable talk with other person on mobile phone, then applicant interrupted her. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier when the Non-applicant left her matrimonial home without any sufÏcient reason then applicant organized a society meeting, wherein an agreement dated 08.03.2016 (Exbt. D-10) and AfÏdavit- cum- Declaration Paper dated 24.03.2016 (Exbt. D-11) were executed by the Non-applicant No. 1, wherein she has categorically admitted this fact that she never been subjected to any physical and mental harassment by her husband and his relatives for any kind of demand of dowry and there was some misunderstanding among them, which has been washed out now and after this the non- applicant lived peacefully with the applicant for more than 3 years apart from the applicant's parent, but subsequently on 24.06.2019, she again left her matrimonial house under the instigation of 5 maternal relatives/parent. Further, it is admitted by the Non- applicant No. 1 in para 15 of her cross examination that she has obtained DCA and B. Libe degree and on the basis whereof she would easily get a job with salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The applicant is a natural father of the non-applicant No. 2. As such he is having legal guardianship of the child. The applicant wants to keep his child, therefore the maintenance for the child is not required. He further submits that the learned Family Court has passed the maintenance amount in higher side without considering the evidence of monthly income of the applicant. Therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant 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, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicants have succeeded in proving their application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, monthly income of the applicant, the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 4000/- per month to the non- applicant No.2 (Total 10,000/-) as maintenance, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 6 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the non-applicants, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court concerned has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the 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. Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Abhishek