Panchu Ram Gond v. Kumari Dhaneshwari

©S Qsa

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT

BILASPUR (C.G.) CRIMINAL REVISION N0. ijll OF 2013 APPLICANT Panchu Ram Gond, aged about ('

27 years, son of Kunwar Singh Gond, residentof Amlideeh Kala,'

Post Office, Police Station Chhuikhadan, Tahsil Khairagarh, Civil and Revenue District '"'.J>w A's0'

*»'"

Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh .o»*i ^v?

'<^

VERSUS

^'

Kumari Dhaneshwari, daughter NON-APPLICANT:

of Pawan Yadav (wrongly shown Panchu Ram Gond), aged about Vz years;

minor;

through natural guardian mother Smt.

Fatkan Bai, wife of Pawan Yadav (wrongly shown Panchu Ram Gond) resident of Village Amlideeh Kala, Post Office, Police Station Chhuikhadan, Tahsil Khairagarh, Civil and Revenue District Rajnandgaon, ^ Chhattisgarh (_(?.-n-A») CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER 5ECTION 19 SUB SECTION 4 OF THE FAMILY COURT'S ACT; READ WITH SECTIN 397 OF THE CQDE_OFCRIMINAL PROCEDURE

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench :

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sain Koshy (f ^>o Criminal Revision No. 411 of 2013 Panchu Ram Gond Applicant

VERSUS

Non-applicant Kumari Dhaneshwari Shri R. N. Jha, counsel for the applicant.

None for the non-applicant.

CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 19 (4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984 O RD E R (10.02.2014) By way of the instant criminal revision, the applicant has challenged the order dated 10.05.2013 passed by the Family Court, Rajnandgaon in Misc. Criminal Case No. 7/2012 whereby the learned Family Judge has ordered the applicant for payment ofRs. 700/- per month to the non-applicant as maintenance. 2.

Facts leading to the instant case are that the non-applicant was born from the relationship of the mother of non-applicant namely Fatkan Bai with the applicant.

That the marriage of Fatkan Bai was performed with one Pawan Yadav and when the family members of her in-laws knew the fact that Fatkan Bai had been conceived from the relationship with the present applicant, they sent her back to her parental home.

3.

Thereafter a meeting was convened in the viUage where the present applicant had accepted his relationship with the mother of non-applicant namely Fatkan Bai and also accepted that the -l

-•2non-appUcant was born from the said relationship. In the meeting, it was also agreed that the non-applicant and her mother Fatkan Bai would live with the present applicant.

However, the said decision of the villagers was not acceptable to the family members of the applicant and fhey chased the nonapplicant and her mother out of fheir house which compelled fhe non-applicant and her mother to move an application under Section of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the applicant.

4.

After considering the submissions put forth by both the parties and the evidences on record, the Pamily Court vide its order dated 10.05.2013 directed the applicant to pay an amount of Rs.700/- per month only to the non-applicant as maintenance.

5.

It is this order dated 10.05.2013 which has been assailed by the applicant in fhe instant criminal revision. 6.

From the record it is evidently clear that on an earlier occasion the present applicant was charged in a criminal case registered as Sessions Trial No.04/2012 for the ofFence punishable under section 376 of IPC on account of subjecting the mother of non-applicant Fafkan Bai to physical relation on fhe pretext of marriage.

In the said case, the relationship between the present applicant and mother of the non-applicant Fatkan Bai was estabUshed before the Court but taldng into consideration the evidences which were brought on record, the Sessions Court vide itsjudgment dated 21.10.2012 acquitted the ~3.r'

present applicant of the charge under section 376 of IPC. 7.

In the said Sessions case there was ample evidence whereby it was established that the non-applicant was bom from the relationship of the applicant with the mother of nonapplicant and that this fact was also brought before the village meeting wherein the non-appUcant and the mother of nonapplicant both were accepted to be taken by the present applicant to stay with him at his residence but subsequently the applicant refused.

This part of the evidence is also supported by father of Fatkan Bai namely Guniram Yadav.

8.

It is evidently clear from the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh in S. T. No. 04/2012 whereby the present applicant has been acquitted of the offence under section 376 of IPC vide order dated 21.10.2012 that the present applicant had a physical relationship with the mother of the present non-applicant.

From the said judgment it is also established that the non-applicant was born from the relationship of the mother of non-applicant with the present applicant.

Iherefore this Court does not fuid any error or illegality to have been committed by the Family Court while recording the findings in the instant case.

Taking aU these facts and circun'istances into consideration and the evidences that have come on record, I am of the opinion fhat it is not a case where this Court should interfere with the findings arrived at by the Court below.

9.

For the foregoing reasons, as there is no substance in the

-u uisteint criminal revision, the same is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- P.Sam Koshy ^- :;^.^