Chattisgarh High Court
Pravin Kumar Jain vs Anjali Jain on 5 February, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:6499-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 34 of 2025
1 - Pravin Kumar Jain S/o Late Prakashchand Jain Aged About 49 Years R/o House
No. 34, Vardhaman Nagar, Behind Jain Temple, New Rajendra Nagar, Tahsil And
District Raipur (C.G.).
--- Appellant (s)
versus
1 - Anjali Jain W/o Pravin Kumar Jain Aged About 47 Years R/o MGI-16, Indrawati
Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.). --- (Deponent On Behalf Of
Applicant Before The Family Court)
2 - Ku. Dibyansha Jain Aged About 16 Years Through Anjali Jain (Natural
Guardian), R/o MGI-16, Indrawati Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.).
--- (Applicant Through Natural Guardian Anjali Jain).
--- Respondent(s)
&
1 - Pravin Kumar Jain S/o Late Prakashchand Jain Aged About 49 Years R/o House No. 34,
Vardhaman Nagar, Behind Jain Temple, New Rajendra Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Anjali Jain W/o Pravin Kumar Jain Aged About 47 Years R/o M.G.I. 16, Indrawati
Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Ku. Divyansha Jain Aged About 16 Years Through Anjali Jain ( Natural Guardian ), R/o
M.G.I. 16, Indrawati Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s) : Shri Gary Mukhopadhyaya, Advocate
DB: Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})
Order on Board
05/02/2025
As both the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the same party, they are
being decided by this common order.
2. FA(MAT) No.34/2025 has been filed by the appellant / husband against order
dated 12/09/2024 passed by the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Raipur(CG) in MCC No.491/2024 and FA(MAT) No.35/2025 has been filed by the
appellant against order dated 12/09/2024 passed by the 2 nd Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Raipur (CG) in MCC No.492/2024 whereby the learned Family
Court dismissed the applications filed by the appellant / husband under Section 195,
340 of CrPC on 25/04/2024.
3. Facts which are emerging are that marriage of the appellant and respondent -
Anjali Jain was solemnized on 27/04/2005 and out of their wedlock, they have a
daughter - Divyansha who was born on 07/07/2007. The respondent - Anjali Jain
left the house of the appellant and thereafter, she filed a complaint on 14/09/2010.
She filed various complaints against the appellant and she also filed an application
under Section 125 of CrPC and the learned Family Court vide order dated
24/10/2018 directed the appellant to pay Rs.5,000/- as maintenance for daughter
Divyansha Jain. It is submitted that the appellant was paying the maintenance
amount regularly but the respondent / wife filed an application on behalf of the
minor daughter Divyansha Jain under Section 125 (3) of CrPC before the Family
Court on 08/04/2024 alleging that the appellant had not paid maintenance during the
period of Covid 19 and he is liable to pay Rs.80,500/- and in another MCC, she filed
application under Section 125 (3) of the CrPC before the Family Court on
08/04/2024 alleging that the appellant had not paid the maintenance amount from
January, 2023 to February, 2024 amounting to Rs.65,000/-. Learned Family Court
registered both the applications as MCC No.491/24 and MCC No.492/24 and in
support of her application, she also filed affidavit Annexure A/11. The appellant /
husband filed an application under Section 195 and 340 of CrPC on the ground that
the respondent / wife has deliberately filed false affidavit before the trial Court.
Therefore criminal proceedings may be initiated against the respondent / wife but
vide impugned order dated 12/09/2024, learned trial Court rejected the application of
the appellant in both the cases and as the respondent / wife did not press her
application, therefore, both the applications were dismissed as withdrawn on the
same day. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/ husband.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned orders are illegal
and erroneous. It is submitted that the respondent / wife sworn in false affidavit
before the learned Family Court knowing fully well that such false affidavit if treated
to be proved can lead to imprisonment of the appellant - Pravin Kumar Jain. It is
submitted that all the ingredients of offence as defined under Section 191, 192, 196,
199, 200, 209, 210 of IPC are present in the illegal action of respondent No.1.
Learned Family Court committed gross error in accepting the statement of
respondent No.1 that she had filed the application by mistake. Learned Family Court
failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 had deliberately filed the application under
Section 125 (3) of the CrPC supported with the affidavit just to harass the appellant.
It is also submitted that the learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that the
action of respondent No.1 is nothing but abuse of the process of law. The excuse
given by respondent No.1 in her reply is unacceptable and in as much as respondent
No.1 being a natural guardian of daughter and handling the bank account of Ku.
Divyansha Jain could not have been ignorant of the transaction made in the bank
account. Therefore, the impugned orders in both the cases are liable to be set aside.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
In Re: Suo Motu proceedings against R.Karuppan, Advocate, (2001) 5 SCC 289.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
6. It is clear from the records of the learned trial Court appended with memo of
appeal that the respondent / wife filed an application under Section 125 (3) of CrPC
as guardian of her daughter for recovery of the maintenance amount. In support of
her submission, she filed her affidavit. The appellant / husband on 25/04/2024 filed
application under Section 195 and 340 of CrPC with documents and the learned trial
Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application of appellant on
12/09/2024. The operative portion of that order is reproduced as under -
**vukosnd dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu ij fopkj fd;kA vukosnd us ftu
rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vukosfndk ds fo#) nkf.Md dk;Zokgh fd, tkus dk
fuosnu fd;k x;k gS mDr rF;ksa ds laca/k esa vkosfndk us vius tokc esa dgk
gS fd tkudkjh ds vHkko esa ewy vkosnu varxZr /kkjk 125 (3) naizla esa
vfHkdfFkr fd;k tkuk O;Dr fd;k gSA vkosfndk us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd muds
}kjk vkosnu esa fdlh Hkh rF;ksa ds laca/k esa >wBk dFku ugha fd;k x;k gS
cfYd tkudkjh ds vHkko essa ln~Hkkfod :i lsa vkosnu esa dFku fd;k x;k
gSA bl izdkj vkosfndk dh vksj ls izLrqr tokc esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa ls ;g
Li"V gksrk gS fd vkosfndk us vius ewy vkosnu varxZr /kkjk 125(3) naizla esa
Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh jkf'k ds laca/k esa ln~Hkkfod :i ls tkudkjh ds vHkko esa
dFku fd;k tkuk izdV gksrk gSA ,slh n'kk esa vkosfndk ds fo#) /kkjk 191]
209] 210] 211 Hkknfo lgifBr /kkjk 192] 196] 199 ,oa 200 Hkknfo ds rgr
nkf.Md dk;Zokgh fd, tkus dh vko';drk izrhr ugha gks jgk gSA vr%
vukosnd dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu varxZr /kkjk 195] 340 naizla fnukad 25-
04-2024 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA**
7. It is clear from the records of the learned trial Court as appended with memo
of appeal that the parties were not represented by their advocates before the learned
trial Court and they are represented by amicus curiae (nyaya mitra). Learned trial
Court after appreciating the reply of appellant & respondent and supported
documents found that the application for recovery of the maintenance amount seems
to have filed on bonafide grounds and dismissed the application of the appellant.
Section 195 and 340 of CrPC are quoted as under -
"Section 195 of CrPC - Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of
public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating
to documents given in evidence -(1) No Court shall take cognizance--
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both
inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence,
Except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned
or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively
subordinate;
(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following section of
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196
(both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228,
when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in
relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under
section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such
offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document
produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or
the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause
(ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such
officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this
behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195.
(1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise
any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice
that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been
committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the
case may be, in respect of a document produced or given evidence in
a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary
inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, -
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before
such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the
Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to
such magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of
an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a
complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor
rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be
exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate
within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed, -
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such
officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court[or by
such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in
this behalf.] [ Substituted by Act 2 of 2006, Section 6, for Cl. (b)
(w.e.f. 16-4-2006). Prior to its substitution, Cl (b) read as under :-
[(b) in by other case, by the presiding officer of the Court].]
(4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in Section
195."
8. It is clear from the order sheets that the learned trial Court found that the
application was filed by the respondent / wife on bonafide grounds in the absence of
information. The appellant also did not file any notice before learned trial Court or
this Court which shows that he informed the respondent for depositing the
maintenance amount. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court is in
accordance with the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and documents filed by
both the parties. The dispute is between the spouses. The respondent / wife has also
withdrew the applications filed under Section 125 (3) of CrPC. Therefore, after
giving thoughtful consideration on submission of learned counsel for the appellant
and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order impugned in this appeal. Both the appeals are
dismissed at motion stage without issuing notice to the respondents.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE JUDGE
Deepti
DEEPTI
HARIKUMAR Date:
2025.02.07
16:56:40
+0530
