Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:25079 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1070 of 2018 Jwala Kumar S/o Bhaiyalal Aged About 30 Years Caste-Chamar, R/o Ekta Nagar, Khongapani, Police Station-Jhagrakhand, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Sharda W/o Jwala Kumar Aged About 27 Years 2 - Kumari Janhavi S/o Jwala Kumar Aged About 2 ½ Years, Caste- Chamar Both are R/o Village- Near Malai Talab Chanwaridand, Police Station And Tahsil-Manendragarh, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Rajkumar Pali, Advocate For Respondents : None present Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17.06.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. Heard Mr.Rajkumar Pali, learned counsel for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. 2. By way of this revision, the petitioner has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set-aside the 2 impugned order 07/08/2018 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Judge Family Court Manendragarh, District- Korea (C.G.), In Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 35/17 and further be pleased to pass appropriate orders, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents had filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC for grant of maintenance before learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District- Korea (C.G.) stating that respondent No. 1 performed love Marriage with the petitioner prior to 3 years and from their wedlock they were blessed with respondent No. 2 and at present she was aged about two and half years. On the basis of complaint the police station Manendragarh during the course of counseling was directed the petitioner to execute marriage agreement and he signed in that agreement. 4. She further stated that earlier she was married with Chhotelal who is resided at Khongapani, but the petitioner approached and gave false promise with respondent no. 1 to provide for maintenance, food, cloths etc., therefore developed sexual relationship between them and at present the petitioner is not providing any maintenance. She further stated that she is not able to maintenance herself. She filed an application and prayed for maintenance of Rs. 5000/- each before learned Family Court Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.). 5. After receiving the notice of the Family Court the petitioner appeared and submitted his reply before the Family Court and denied the entire relation and claim of maintenance of the respondents and 3 further stated that respondent No. 1 is wife of Chhotelal and respondent No. 2 is his children and further denied the relationship with the respondents. Therefore they are not entitled for grant of maintenance from the petitioner. He further stated that respondent No. 1 is also doing work at Iron Factory at Chanwaridand and getting Rs.10,000/- per month and also doing stitching ( सि(cid:2)लाई बुनाई) work and earning 5000/- per month in additional. She is earning women and maintained herself and her children. Therefore, he prayed before learned Family Court for rejection of her claim against the petitioner. 6. After framing of 4 issues learned Family Court wrongly passed an order for maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month in favour of respondent No.2 and rightly rejected the claim of respondent No. 1. Hence, this revision petition . 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Family Court failed to consider the marriage of respondent No.1 solemnized with one Chhotelal who is husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 and there is no any document produced before the Family Court with regard to the divorce between them, which clearly shows that they are living together as husband and wife and respondent No. 2 is daughter of the Chhotelal and not the petitioner. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to consider the actual facts and circumstances of the case and wrongly given the finding in Para-14 of the order that "both are came and gone in their houses", therefore considered the relation between them, but failed 4 to consider the actual reason for came and gone because she is sister-in-law of brother of the petitioner and on this purpose they are came and gone in their family and not for other reason. He also submits that learned Family Court also failed to consider that civil suit filed by the petitioner against the respondents and challenging the maternity before learned Principal Judge Family Court in Civil Suit no. 214-A/15, which clearly shows that the petitioner is neither father of respondent No. 2 nor husband of respondent No.1. He contended that learned Family Court ought to have passed the order in the light of marriage agreement has been executed at Police Station and on this basis she claiming other relief, which is also disputed and not considered the purpose for filing that suit, and also failed to consider the ex-party order passed by the learned trial court in Civil Suit no. 214-A/15, which clearly shows that the entire case has been developed in false and fabricated grounds. Therefore, the order passed by learned Family Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court in para 22 of the impugned order has held that it is clear from the admission of respondent No.1 and statement of her witness No.02 Suraj Chaudhary that the petitioner is not working at present, but the petitioner has not adduced any evidence that he is physically handicapped. He used to work as a security guard earlier, this fact 5 has been stated by the respondents and her witness, which has been denied by the petitioner that he used to earn income earlier and learned Family Court while denying the maintenance to respondent No.1 has granted maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to respondent No.2, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the documents appended with revision and the finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to respondent No.2, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Kunal