Vijay Jaiswal vs Smt. Sushma Jaiswal And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7139 Chatt

                               1

                                                          NAFR

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                     CRR No. 356 of 2014

    Vijay Jaiswal S/o Shri Vishwanath Jaiswal, Aged About 32
     Years R/o Bauripara, Ambikapur, Police Station Ambikapur,
     District Surguja Chhattisgarh

                                                 ---- Petitioner

                            Versus

   1. Smt. Sushma Jaiswal W/o Vijay Jaiswal, Aged About 26
       Years

   2. Sagar Kumar Jaiswal S/o Vijay Jaiswal, Aged About 7 Years

     Respondent No.2 being Minor Through Natural Guardian

Mother Smt. Sushma Jaiswal, Aged about 26 Years,

Both R/o Village Karuwa, Police Station Vishrampur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

For Applicant Mr. Saurabh Singh and Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, Advocates For Respondent Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order On Board 29/11/2022

1. Heard.

2. Being aggrieved with the order dated 27.3.2014, passed by

the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur District

Surajpur (CG) in Criminal Revision Case No.75/2011(Smt.

Sushma Jaiswal and another and Vijay Jaiswal), whereby,

the revision preferred by the respondents, who are the

wife and minor son of the petitioner, against the order

dated 15.3.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Surajpur in Misc. Criminal Case No.139/05, in

which, the maintenance application was dismissed, has

been allowed. Further, the petitioner has been directed to

pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 2500/- w.e.f. the date of

application i.e. 13.9.2005, separately to both the

respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

without any rhyme and reason, respondent No.1 is living

separately. He submits that learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur has rightly

dismissed the maintenance application as a divorce decree

has already been passed between the parties by the

competent court i.e. Family Court, Ambikapur in Civil Suit

No.5A/2006 vide judgment and decree dated 4.12.2010.

He would further submit that the revisional Court has

wrongly held that respondent No.1 is the biological son of

the petitioner, therefore, he prays to quash the impugned

order and allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would

support the impugned order and submit that the same is

well merited and does not call for any interference. He

would further submit that the petitioner is not paying the

monthly maintenance regularly to the respondents.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record with utmost circumspection.

6. It is undisputed that the marriage of respondent No.1 and

the petitioner was solemnized on 1.2.2004 and on account

of such relationship, respondent No.2 was born on

1.12.2004. The learned Family Court, Ambikapur vide

judgment dated 4.12.2006 passed in Civil Suit No.5-A/2006

categorically held the issue in negative that respondent

No.2 was born from an illicit relationship. Even the

petitioner was given an opportunity to undergo a DNA

test, for which he did not agree, so an adverse inference

was drawn against the petitioner himself.

7. The Revisional Court, after considering all the evidence on

record that the relationship between the petitioner and

respondent No.1 was that of husband and wife and during

the existence of such relationship, respondent No.2 was

born; the wife has not remarried; the respondents are

unable to maintain themselves; the petitioner is working in

BSF and is neglecting to maintain his wife and his minor

son i.e respondent No.2, granted monthly maintenance to

the tune of Rs.2500/- each to the respondents from the

date of the filing of application.

8. For the foregoing, this Court does not find any illegality or

infirmity in the impugned order, which is well merited and

does not call for any interference.

9. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. However, the

respondent-wife is granted liberty to move an appropriate

application before the concerned Executing Court, making

a prayer to issue a direction to the concerned Drawing and

Disbursement Officer, to deduct the maintenance from the

source of the petitioner. Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

Shyna