Ramayan Alias Pintu Vaishnav S/o Late Krishndutt Vaishnav Aged About 35 Years R/o Aawas v. 1 - Chandrakala Vaishnav W/o Ramayan Vaishnav Aged About 28 Years R/o Gulmohar Colony
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36492 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 62 of 2024 Ramayan Alias Pintu Vaishnav S/o Late Krishndutt Vaishnav Aged About 35 Years R/o Aawas Plot Amar Nagar, Dabhra, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant(s) versus 1 - Chandrakala Vaishnav W/o Ramayan Vaishnav Aged About 28 Years R/o Gulmohar Colony, Thana City Kotwali, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Adhyayan Vaishnav S/o Ramayan Vaishnav Aged About 11 Years Mnor, Represented By Through Mother Chandrakala Vaishnav W/o Ramayan Vaishnav, R/o Gulmohar Colony, Thana City Kotwali, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shantanu Vaishnav S/o Ramayan Vaishnav Aged About 9 Years Minor Represented By Through Mother Chandrakala Vaishnav W/o Ramayan Vaishnav, R/o Gulmohar Colony, Thana City Kotwali, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : None
Legal Reasoning
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 CRR No. 1200 of 2024 Chandrakala Vaishnav W/o Ramayan Vaishnav Aged About 28 Years R/o Gulmohar Colony, Police Station City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant(s) Versus Ramayan Alias Pintu Vaishnav S/o Late Krishndutt Vaishnav Aged About 35 Years R/o Aawas Plot, Amar Nagar, Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 2 8.07.2025 1. The applicants have filed these criminal revisions against the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.) in Cr.M.J.C. No. 74/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicant- Chandrakala Vaishnav and granted maintenance of Rs.2,500/- to applicant- Adhyayan Vaishnav and Rs.2,500/- to applicant- Shantanu Vaishnav. The applicant- Chandrakala Vaishnav has preferred the revision for grant of maintenance to her and applicant- Ramayan Alias Pintu Vaishnav has preferred this 3 revision against the maintenance amount granted of the applicants. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between applicant- Chandrakala Vaishnav (hereinafter referred to as ‘wife’) was solemnized according to Hindu rituals with the applicant- Ramayan alias Pintu Vaishnav (hereinafter referred as to ‘husband’) in the year 2008 and the applicants- Adhyayan Vaishnav and Shantanu Vaishnav (hereinafter referred to as ‘children’) were born out of their wedlock. The wife used to visit Dabhra house time to time. The husband runs a daily needs shop at Dabhra. The wife came to know that the applicant is living with one another girl then she visited Dabhra along with her mother; where the sister-in-law, husband of sister-in-law and second daughter of sister-in-law of wife abused and physically harassed her and abused her mother. The wife then filed a complaint on 11.02.2020 at Janjgir-Champa and Dabhra. After marriage both wife and the husband lived a healthy married life for 2 months and after 2 months, the husband used to physically harass the wife after drinking alcohol. The husband used to restrain the wife from talking to her parents through mobile phone and used to ask the her to get the household expenses from her parents. The husband has an extra-marital affair with another girl. The husband would often send the wife to her parental house to bring money and if she did not bring, she was told not to come back. The husband used to harass the wife if she did not bring 4 money from her parental house and ultimately due the cruelty of the husband, the wife went to the parental house on 13.01.2018. It was further contended that the husband is educated and healthy person and runs a daily needs shop at Dabhra and thereby earning a sufficient amount, in spite of that he is avoiding to maintain his wife and children, therefore they filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance and the same was partly allowed by the learned Family Court and maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,500/- (each) was granted to the children, but maintenance to wife was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for applicants- Chandrakala Vaishnav (wife) and children submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that, she clearly established her case by narrating the facts that, her husband used to thrash and abuse her a lot and during a fight, he harassed her physically and she had no other option to leave her matrimonial house in order to save her life. So the rejection of maintenance of the application on her behalf deserves to be set aside. Further, the learned Family Court also failed to consider that, the parents of the wife are old, the she has no means of income while her husband is an educated and healthy person and has his own daily needs shop in Dabhra from which he earns an income of about Rs. 50,000/- per month, therefore finding of the learned family court against the 5 applicant/wife is bad in law as well as against the basic principle of natural justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-Chandrakala Vaishnav (wife), perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. 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 Chandrakala Vaishnav (wife) and applicants- Adhyayan Vaishnav and Shantanu Vaishnav (children) and granted maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500-2,500/- respectively to applicants Nawab Adhyayan Vaishnav and Nawab Shantanu Vaishnav, totaling Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) per month and directed that this amount will be received on their behalf by their legal mother, applicant- Chandrakala Vaishnav, observing that the applicant / wife has failed to prove the fact that she has sufficient grounds to live separately from Ramayan alias Pintu Vaishnav/husband and Ramayan alias Pintu Vaishnav/husband is bound to maintain his children as undisputedly, they are not capable of maintaining themselves. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant- Chandrakala Vaishnav (wife) and perusing the impugned order and the finding 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. 6 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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. (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sd/- Rahul Dewangan