[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Jalaj Thawait vs Smt. Hemlata Thawait on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally signed
by SAGRIKA
2026:CGHC:15295-DB
SAGRIKA AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date:
2026.04.04
13:18:54 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 176 of 2026
Jalaj Thawait S/o Dhananjay Thawait Aged About 40 Years R/o
Kaamred Sudheer Mukherjee Ward, Hanuman Mandir, Tehsil And
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Smt. Hemlata Thawait W/o Jalaj Thawait Aged About 39 Years R/o
Near Ambedkar Chowk, Shankar Nagar, Tehsil And District- Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Kumari Mughda Thawait D/o Jalaj Thawait Aged About 13 Years
Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Hemlata Thawait, R/o
Near Ambedkar Chowk, Shankar Nagar, Tehsil And District- Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
02/04/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India by the petitioner challenging the order dated
08.01.2026 wherein the petitioner has moved an application under
Section 379 of BNSS for registration of FIR for the offence
committed under Section 227, 228, 229, 236, 237, 242, 246, 248
of BNS, which has been rejected by the learned Family Court.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
"10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to allow this petition and kindly direct
for registration of the FIR against the
respondent for filing false affidavit before the
Family Court below.
10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to allow the application under Section 379 of
the BNSS for registration of the FIR for the
offence committed under Section 227, 228,
229, 236, 237, 242, 246, 248 of BNS, 2023
against the respondent for fabricating
evidence before Family Court below.
10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper, may also be passed
in favour of the petitioner."
3. That, the brief facts of the present case are that the respondent
filed an application under Section 127(1) of the Cr.P.C. before the
learned Family Court, Durg, which was registered as MJC Case
No. 593/2024, seeking modification/enhancement of
maintenance, pursuant to which notice was issued and duly
served upon the petitioner, who appeared and filed his reply along
with supporting documents (Annexure P-4). The respondent, in
support of her claim, submitted an affidavit disclosing her income
and expenditure in terms of the guidelines laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnish vs. Neha (Annexure P-2). The
petitioner also filed his affidavit and, upon scrutiny, found that the
respondent had allegedly misled the Court by submitting false and
incorrect information. Consequently, the petitioner moved an
application under Section 379 of the BNSS seeking registration of
FIR for offences under various provisions of BNS, 2023, however,
the learned Family Court rejected the said application and
proceeded to fix the matter for evidence on 07.02.2026, without
properly considering the petitioner's objections, thereby giving rise
to the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present
application preferred by the respondent under Section 127(1) of
the Cr.P.C. is wholly misconceived, baseless and filed with an
ulterior motive to mislead this Hon'ble Court and extract undue
financial benefit. The respondent has deliberately suppressed
material facts and furnished a false affidavit regarding her income,
educational qualifications, and receipt of maintenance, in clear
violation of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rajnish vs. Neha. It is an admitted position from her own
cross-examination that she has been continuously receiving
maintenance and that no arrears are due, contrary to the
averments made in her application. Further, the respondent has
concealed her independent sources of income, including benefits
received under government schemes, and has relied upon
fabricated and unverified documents, thereby committing fraud
upon the Court. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate
these material contradictions and has erroneously rejected the
petitioner's application seeking appropriate action for offences
relating to false evidence under the provisions of BNS, 2023 read
with BNSS. In light of the above, it is humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned
proceedings/orders, take strict action against the respondent for
filing false and misleading affidavits, and dismiss the application
for enhancement of maintenance, in the interest of justice.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material annexed with the petition.
6. Having considered the facts of the case and upon perusal of the
material available on record, it is evident that the controversy
involved in the present petition is no longer res integra and stands
squarely covered by the judgments rendered by the High Court
of Allahabad in Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020 : Waseem
Haider Vs. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Home
Others (Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020, decided on 14.12.2020)
as well as by this Hon'ble Court in WPCR No. 333 of 2020
Akhilesh Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, decided
on 12.04.2023, wherein it has been categorically held that in such
matters, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to
approach the competent Magistrate under the relevant provisions
of law for redressal of his grievance. In view of the settled legal
position and availability of statutory remedies, no interference is
warranted in the present petition under writ jurisdiction.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to
the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before appropriate
Forum.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
sagrika
