Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36510 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1407 of 2024 Kanwaljeet Singh S/o Raghubeer Singh Chawla, Aged About 37 Years R/o Jagmal Chowk, Behind Yamaha Showroom, Bilaspur, Tehsil District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus --- Applicant 1 - Smt. Manmeet Kaur Chawla W/o Kanwaljeet Singh Chawla, Aged About 33 Years R/o Jagmal Chowk, Behind Yamaha Showroom, Bilaspur, Tehsil District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Temporary Address Sadar Road, Balodabazar, Thana And Tehsil Balodabazar, District Balodabazar - Bhataprara, Chhattisgarh. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 - Master Tajveer Singh Chawla (Minor) S/o Kanwaljeet Singh Chawla, Aged About 4 Years Through His Mother Manmeet Kaur Chawla, R/o Jagmal Chowk, Behind Yamaha Showroom, Bilaspur, Tehsil District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Temporary Address Sadar Road, Balodabazar, Thana And Tehsil Balodabazar, District Balodabazar - Bhataprara, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Applicant/Husband For Respondents/Wife & Child : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate. Along with CRR No. 1465 of 2024 1 - Smt. Manmeet Kaur Chawla W/o Kanwaljeet Singh Chawla Aged About 32 Years R/o. Jagmal Chowk, Behind Yamaha Showroom, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Currently R/o. Sadar Road, Baloda Bazar, P.S. And Tehsil - Baloda Bazar, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - (Minor) Tajveer Singh Chawla S/o Kanwaljeet Singh Chawla Aged About 4 Years Natural Guardian (Mother), Smt. Manmeet Singh Chawla, R/o. Jagmal Chowk, Behind Yamaha Showroom, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur, 2 Chhattisgarh. Currently R/o. Sadar Road, Baloda Bazar, P.S. And Tehsil - Baloda Bazar, District - Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. Versus ---Applicants Kanwaljeet Singh Chawla S/o Raghubir Singh Chawla Aged About 36 Years R/o. Jagmal Chowk, Behind Yamaha Showroom, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Respondents/Wife & Child For Applicant/Husband : : Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.07.2025 Order on Board 1. These Criminal Revisions are being aggrieved of the judgment dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Balodabazar- Bhatapara, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 98/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the wife and child, for grant of maintenance, by rejecting the claim of the wife and ordered the husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the child. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of the wife (Manmeet Kaur Chawla) and husband (Kanwaljeet Singh Chawla) was solemnized on 10/02/2018, by way of the Hindu rituals and customs at Dayalband, Gurudwara, Bilaspur, (C.G.). Consequently, the child, Master Tajveer Singh Chawla, was born out of wedlock and currently, he resides with the wife herein. The wife and son herein had filed an application against the husband under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and an application for grant of maintenance amounting to Rs. 60,000/- per month for their basic livelihood. At the time of marriage, the parents of the wife had provided 3 her with Gold jewellery, household items, Royal Enfield Bullet, Honda Creta Car as dowry. After the elapse of five-six months of their marriage, the behaviour of the husband changed and the husband, his sister and his parents began to torture her physically and mentally for dowry. The husband's parents and siblings incited him to bring dowry and beat her. Falling into his trap, the husband used to beat wife under the influence of alcohol and used to demand Rs. 5 lakhs and when she did not provide the same, he used to throw her out of his house and used to ask her to bring Rs. 5 lakhs before she entering his house again. Even when wife got pregnant, the husband and his parents i.e. mother-in-law, father-in- law and sister-in-law used to abuse and beat her in the name of dowry. She kept tolerating everything and did not complain, saying that his behaviour will change. At the time of birth of child, the health of the applicant deteriorated and she was advised bed rest. Then with the permission of her in-laws, she came to her maternal home Balodabazar, where the health of the child deteriorated and he was admitted to Apollo Hospital, the expenses of which were borne by the parents of the wife. After the child recovered, both of them came back to the house of husband but he refused to take them back in the house, thereafter, even after the elapse of 11 months, he did not make any attempts to know their whereabouts. 3. The husband (Kanwaljeet Singh Chawla) has denied the allegations levelled against him in the application. After perusing the documents and hearing the submissions of the parties, and the learned Family Court partly allowed the application filed by the wife and child, by rejecting the claim of the wife and granted maintenance of an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month in favour of the child as maintenance. Hence, these revisions. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the husband (Kanwaljeet Singh Chawla) 4 submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the financial condition of the husband is not going good, therefore, the husband had taken a personal loan for a sum of Rs. 5,19,250/-, however, the learned Family Court without considering the financial status of the husband passed the impugned order. Therefore,
Decision
the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the wife (Manmeet Kaur Chawla) and child (Master Tajveer Singh Chawla) opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the wife is also a dependent woman who resides with her brother and his family and she has no any source of earning, hence, she is also liable to be granted maintenance. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be modified. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 6. 7. 5 8. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal revisions being devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar