In a revision under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act and Sections 397/401 CrPC, the High Court rejected the father's challenge to the Family Court order dismissing the mother's Section 125 claim while granting maintenance for the minor son.
The Criminal Revision is dismissed; the impugned order of the Family Court is affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 151 of 2012
----Applicant
Versus
---- Respondents
For Applicant Mr. Neel Ratan Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondents Mr. Vishal Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board
10/02/2023
2
3
solemnized with the applicant No.1. Non-applicant is a labourer and only earns Rs.1,000/-per month and he has no other source of income. Therefore, it is prayed that present revision may be allowed and order passed by the learned Family Court be set aside.
4
stated that she had informed the incident to her parents and thereafter social meeting was also convened where non-applicant was ready to keep her as his wife and signed the agreement Ex.A-1. After the execution of agreement Ex.A-1, non-applicant told her that after the birth of child, he would stay with her. After 2-3 months, applicant No.2 was born and non-applicant refused to live with her. She further stated that again social meeting was convened and compromise took place between the parties vide Exs. A-3 and A-4 and they signed the agreements in presence of the witnesses. Thereafter, applicant No.1 started living with the non-applicant. She stated that during her stay with the non-applicant, he (non-applicant) used to beat her & threaten her of life. Therefore, she was living separately with the non-applicant. Applicants witnesses have also supported the statement of AW-1 Kavita Yadav.
5
record has recorded a finding that the non-applicant/Nandkeshwar has not performed marriage with applicant No.1/Kavita Yadav though he was having relations with her and applicant No.2 was born out of such relation and the non-applicant is the father of applicant No.2. The above finding recorded by the learned Court below is based on material available on record which does not require any interference.
Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge
Akhilesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's dismissal of mother's maintenance claim and grant of son's maintenance is maintainable under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act read with Section 397/401 CrPC.
Whether the lower court erred in finding the father of minor son despite lack of solemnised marriage with mother.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Nandkeshwar Yadav
Smt. Kavita Yadav
Shani Yadav
Radhakishan Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
