Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Vinita Chandra vs Swaraj Chandra on 19 May, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved for orders on :23/03/2021
Order passed on : 19/05/2021
CRR No. 358 of 2018
1. Smt. Vinita Chandra W/o Swaraj Chandra, Aged About 27 Years, R/o-
Village- Odekera, P.S.- Jaijaipur, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
Presently Residing At Village- Banari, P.S. and Tahsil- Janjgir, District-
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
2. Chirag D/o Swaraj Chandra, Aged About 06 months, Revisioner No. 02
is a minor and is represented by his natural guardian (Mother) namely
Smt. Vinita Chandra, R/o Village - Odekera, Thana Jaijaipur, District-
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Revisioner/Applicants
Versus
Swaraj Chandra, S/o Doommani Chandra (D.M. Chandra), Aged About
28 Years, Caste- Chandra, R/o- Village- Odekera, Thana Jaijaipur,
Tahsil- Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing
At- M.P.V.G.C. Colony, Qrt. No. D.-207 Birshingpur Pali, P.S. - Pali,
District- Umariya, Madhya Pradesh, District : Umaria, Madhya Pradesh
---- Respondent/Non-applicant
For Applicants/Revisioners - Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate.
For Respondent - Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
CAV Order
19-05-2021
1. This criminal revision has been brought challenging the correctness,
propriety and legality of the order dated 25-01-2018 passed in MJC, Misc.
Criminal Case No. 72/2016 by the Family Court Janjgir, Dictrict Janjgir-
Champa dismissing the application of applicant No.1/revisioner No.1 under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., however, allowing the application for applicant
No.2/revisioner No.2 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and granting
maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants/revisioners that
dismissal of the application of applicant No.1 was totally erroneous and illegal.
The applicant No.1 had proved by bringing evidence that she was compelled to
live in her parental house because of the cruel treatment of the respondent.
Therefore, the finding, that she is living separately without any sufficient cause,
is totally incorrect. It is further submitted that maintenance granted to applicant
No.2 of Rs.2000/- per month is meager amount and not sufficient to meet the
needs of the applicant No.2. The respondent is a man of means and he is
capable to make payment of maintenance to the applicants, which may be
sufficient for their maintenance and upkeep. Therefore, it is prayed that the
impugned order be modified. The prayer of applicant No.1 may be allowed and
she may be granted relief of maintenance and the amount of maintenance
granted to applicant No.2 may also be enhanced suitably.
3. Learned counsel for respondent opposes the submission and submits
that the learned family Court has not committed any error in dismissing the
application of the applicant No.1 and granting maintenance of Rs.2000/- to
applicant No.2, which needs no interference.
It is also submitted that respondent has obtained decree of divorce
against applicant No.1 in Civil Suit No.182A/2018 by judgment dated 17-02-
2020, which further shows that the applicant No.1 has no entitlement for grant
of maintenance. It is mentioned in the judgment in divorce case that the
respondent had a decree in his favour under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act. Applicant No.1 failed to comply with the decree which further goes to show
that applicant No.1 is living separately without any sufficient cause. Hence, this
revision petition is without any substance which may be dismissed.
Reliance has been placed on the order passed by this Court in Criminal
Revision No.728/2013 (Smt. Ritu Jangade Vs. Maleshwar Jangade) on 17-01-
2014.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Considered on the submissions.
6. Vinita Chandra (AW-1) has stated in her examination-in-chief about her
being tortured for demand of dowry, misbehaviour and other cruel treatment
because of which she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home. In cross-
examination she has remained firm on this statement. However, she has made
a statement that she wants to live with the respondent, but she does not want
to live with the parents of the respondent.
7. Bhuneshwar Prasad (AW-2), father of applicant No.1 has made similar
statement in cross-examination. He has denied the adverse suggestion and
admitted that no complaint was ever made to the community or to the police. In
cross-examination he has also made this admission that he wants to send his
daughter to her matrimonial home on condition that the respondent keeps her
separate from his parents.
8. Shyamlal Sahu (AW-3) has made statement in favour of the applicants
side, in cross-examination, he has admitted that he does not personally know
about the dispute between applicant No.1 and the respondent. Therefore, there
is no support from his statement.
9. Swaraj Bharan Singh Chandra (NAW-1) has stated about the erratic
behaviour of the applicant No.1 and her insistence for going back to her
parental house. He has stated that applicant No.1 has put this condition that
respondent should keep her in Bilaspur separate from his parents, it would be
only then she can reside with him. He has stated about the misbehaviour and
the cruel treatment of applicant No.1. In cross-examination he has made total
denial of the allegation of the applicant's side regarding torture for demand of
dowry.
10. Govind Patel (NAW-2) and Kishore Kumar Chandra (NAW-3) have
made similar statement.
11. On appreciating these evidence, it is found that there is clear admission
from the applicant side that respondent had made proposal to have applicant
No.1 back in her matrimonial home, but applicant No.1 had a condition that the
respondent should live separate from his parents, which cannot be said to be a
reasonable condition. The allegation of cruelty from the applicant side have
been denied, there are allegation from the respondent side that it is applicant
No.1 who herself misbehaved with the respondent and his parents. This fact
regarding the condition of applicant No.1 for living with the respondent
separate from his parents further supports the statement made by the
respondent side. Hence, on this basis, I am of this view that learned Family
Court has drawn conclusion against applicant No.1, on the basis of proper
appreciation of evidence which needs no interference.
12. Considered on the another submission of enhancement of the
maintenance amount of applicant No.2.
13. Respondent has in his statement before the Court stated that he is
unemployed and is unable to pay maintenance. In cross-examination he has
admitted that he is Graduate in Engineering. He has denied other suggestions
about his income. The evidence of the applicant side is also only oral
statement without any document in support of the same. Therefore, there
appears to be no specific evidence present to prove that the respondent has
some regular source of income. The learned Family Court has held in the
impugned order that the respondent is having some earning from engineering
works and also by working on agricultural land of his father, therefore, he has
capability to pay maintenance. Hence, there being no specific ground to hold
that there is incapability of the respondent to make payment of maintenance,
and then there is no denial that applicant No.2 is a child of the respondent and
therefore, finding that the needs of applicant No.2 cannot be met sufficiently
within the amount of Rs.2000/- only, the prayer for enhancement deserves to
allowed.
14. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The prayer of
applicant No.1 in this revision petition is dismissed. The prayer of applicant
No.2 for enhancement of the maintenance amount is allowed and it is ordered
that the respondent shall now pay Rs.4000/- per month to applicant No.2 for
his maintenance until he attains majority. This amount shall be payable from
the date of the order passed by the Family Court.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Aadil
