Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Purvi Jain (Bohra) vs Ritesh Bohra on 30 July, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Proceedings through Video Conferencing
Criminal Revision No.459 of 2021
1. Smt. Purvi Jain (Bohra) W/o Ritesh Bohra, Aged About 28
Years R/o Laxmi Variety Center, Jawahar Market, Camp-02,
Power House, Bhiali, District Durg (C.G.), Presently Residing
At Plot No. 363, Ward No. 25, Near New Fish Market, Beside
Deepak Sports, Camp-02, Bhiali, District - Durg Chhattisgarh.
2. Seyan Bohra S/o Ritesh Bohra, Aged About 3 Years (Minor)
Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Purvi Jain (Bohra), R/
o Laxmi Variety Center, Jawahar Market, Camp-02, Power
House, Bhiali, District Durg (C.G.), Presently Residing At Plot
No. 363, Ward No. 25, Near New Fish Market, Beside
Deepak Sports, Camp-02, Bhiali, District - Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicants
Versus
1. Ritesh Bohra S/o Suresh Bohra, Aged About 29 Years R/o D/
348, Sector 5, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Suresh Kumar Bohra S/o Late Bhanwar Lal Bohra, Aged
About 58 Years R/o D/348, Sector 5, Tagore Nagar, Raipur,
Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Smt. Kanchan Bohra W/o Sureshkumar Bohra, Aged About
54 Years R/o D/348, Sector 5, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil
And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. Smt. Rajkumar Kummad W/o Mukesh Kummad, Aged About
31 Years R/o D/348, Sector 5, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil
And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5. Smt. Vinamrata Badariya W/o Prashant Bahariya, Aged
About 26 Years R/o D/348, Sector 5, Tagore Nagar, Raipur,
Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
6. Smt. Shanti Chandaliya Aged About 66 Years. R/o D/348,
Sector 5, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicants : Shri TK Jha , Advocate
For Respondents : Shri Abhyuday Singh, Advocate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order On Board
30.7.2021.
1. This criminal revision has been preferred against judgment
dated 13.7.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Second
Fast Track Special Judge Durg, Distt. Durg in Criminal Appeal
No.126/2021, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicants
against the order dated 29.6.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Durg, has been partly allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that marriage between
applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.1 was solemnized in the
year 2014 and they were blessed with a male child namely Seyan
in the year 2015. In the year 2018, applicant No.1/wife filed an
application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Durg and the same is pending for consideration as
Complaint Case No.947/2018 (Smt. Purvi Jain & Anr. vs. Ritesth
Bohra & Ors.). During the pendency of the complaint case, non-
applicant No.1/husband filed an application before the JMFC,
Durg for visiting rights to meet his son and the said application
was allowed vide order dated 15.01.2019 and non-applicant No.1
was permitted to visit his child Seyan for two hours on every
Sunday. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.7.2019, non-applicant
No.1 was also permitted to take his son Seyan on each Sunday
in every week to his house while allowing an appeal filed by him
before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg. Since applicant
No.1 was not cooperating with non-applicant No.1 to meet his
son, applicant No.1 was directed by the JMFC Durg to comply
with the order dated 30.7.2019. Thereafter on filing application
by non-applicant No.1, the learned JMFC on 29.6.2021 passed
an order directing the applicant No.1 to drop their child Seyan to
the house of non-applicant No.1 on every Sunday at 7.00 am and
non-applicant No.1 will bring back the child to the house of
applicant No.1 on the same day in the evening. The learned
court also directed that in case of violation of the said order,
proceedings for giving permanent custody of the child to his
father will be initiated. Aggrieved by this order, applicant No.1
filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge 2 nd Fast
Track Special Judge, Durg and the said Court vide order dated
13.7.2021 partly modified the order of the JMFC, Durg.
Aggrieved by this order, applicant No.1 has filed the instant
revision.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that vide
impugned order, learned appellate Court has deleted a part of the
order passed by the JMFC, Durg which reads that " in case of
violation of the order of the trial Court, proceedings with regard to
giving permanent custody of their son Seyan to his father Ritesh
Bohra will be initiated". But the learned appellate Court has not
set aside the remaining part of the order passed by the
Magistrate which reads that "on every Sunday at 7.00 am,
applicant No.1 will drop their son Seyan to the house of non-
applicant No.1 Ritesh Bohra and in the evening non-applicant
No.1 Ritesh Bohra will bring back and drop Seyan in the house of
applicant No.1." Learned counsel for the applicants submits that
it is very difficult for applicant No.1, being a lady, to take her son
Seyan on every Sunday to Raipur from Durg. He further submits
that applicant No.1 has no objection regarding visiting rights of
non-applicant No.1, but the condition imposed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class will create hardship because their
son Seyan does not want to go to the house of non- applicant
No.1 and whenever he comes back from the house of non-
applicant No.1 he become sick, therefore, remaining part of the
order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, may be set
aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicants would
submit that earlier non-applicant No.1/husband was permitted by
the Court to take Seyan on every Sunday from 7.00 am to 7.00
pm but since applicant No.1 was creating problem, non-applicant
No.1 has filed an application before the Court below to direct
applicant No.1 to comply with the order, despite that applicant
No.1 violated the order and created hardship for non-applicant
No.1 to take their son Seyan with him to Raipur. He further
submits that looking to the non-cooperation and hardship created
by applicant No.1, the learned Magistrate was compelled to pass
such order, which has been modified to some extent in the
impugned order by the learned appellate Court. He further
submits that looking to the unwillingness of applicant No.1 to
comply with the order of the learned Magistrate, the learned
appellate Court has maintained the said part of the impugned
order which does not call for any interference by this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused
the impugned orders and other documents filed with the revision
petition.
6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that Complaint Case
No.947/2018 (Smt. Purvi Jain & Ors. vs. Ritesh Bohra & Ors.) is
pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Durg wherein vide order
date 15.01.2019, non-applicant No.1 was permitted for visiting
rights to meet his son Seyan for two hours on every Sunday.
Thereafter non-applicant No.1 filed an application to allow him to
take Seyan one day in every week to his home. This prayer was
allowed in an appeal vide order dated 30.7.2019 by 3 rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Durg. Since applicant No.1 was not complying
with the order dated 30.7.2019, therefore, on filing of the
application, vide order dated 26.3.2021, applicant No.1 was
directed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class to comply
with the order. Despite that order, applicant No.1 has not
complied with order dated 30.7.2019, therefore, on an application
filed by non-applicant No.1, learned JMFC has passed an order
on 29. 6.2021 which has been partly modified by the appellate
Court.
7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that due to non-
compliance of the order dated 30.7.2019, the learned Magistrate
as well as the appellate Court have passed said order. Due to
creating hurdles by applicant No.1, she has been given duty to
drop the child Seyan to the house of non-applicant No.1/husband
in the morning and to balance it, non-applicant No.1 was also
made liable to bring back the child Seyan in the evening of the
same day in the house of applicant No.1/wife. Both of them have
been given equal responsibilities in respect of dropping and
bringing back their child, therefore, it cannot be said that
applicant No.1/wife would face difficulty or hardship in complying
with the impugned order.
8. So far as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the applicants that child Seyan is not interested to go to the
house of his father and whenever he comes back from the house
of his father, he become sick, is concerned, applicant No.1 can
file an application in this regard before appropriate forum. But
only on that ground, applicant No.1 cannot be permitted to
disobey the order dated 30.7.2019.
9. In view of the above, I do not find that learned Additional
Sessions Judge has committed any infirmity or illegality in
passing the impugned order warranting intereference of this
Court.
10. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi)
JUDGE
Bini
