Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 29141 (CHH)

RAGHUNANDAN v. KU. YAMINI RATHORE

CRR/826/2022 · 2025-08-05

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:39676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 826 of 2022 Raghunandan S/o Deepak Ram Rathore, Aged About 40 Years Occupation Electrical Shop, Near Medical, Labour Colony P.S. Kotwali, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus 1 - Ku. Yamini Rathore D/o Shri Raghunandan Rathore, Aged About 8 Years Minor By The Natural Guardian Mother, Smt. Madhuri Rathore D/o Chhedilal Rathore, Occupation Police Constable R/o 18 Acre, Police Line, Near Pts, Q.No. H-8, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Dimpal Rathore D/o Shri Raghunandan Rathore, Aged About 6 Years Minor By The Natural Guardian Mother, Smt. Madhuri Rathore D/o Chhedilal Rathore, Occupation Police Constable R/o 18 Acre, Police Line, Near Pts, Q.No. H-8, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Lata Nayak, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ashish Gangwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Lata Nayak, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ashish Gangwani, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Family Court Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Criminal MJC no. 40/2020, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent, being the daughter of the applicant, filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, stating that the marriage between the applicant and her mother was solemnized and subsequently dissolved by mutual consent on 12.07.2019. It was alleged that post-divorce, the applicant neglected to maintain his children. In response, the applicant filed a written statement contending that, as per the terms of the divorce decree, the mother had undertaken the responsibility of the children’s care. Upon consideration of the material on record, the learned trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month to each child from the date of the application. Aggrieved by this order, the present revision petition has been filed. 4. Ms. Lata Nayak, learned counsel for the applicant, appeared and submits that, in compliance with the Court’s order dated 18.07.2025 the applicant is present, and the address and mobile number of the applicant have been provided by the learned counsel for the applicant to the learned counsel for the respondents, namely, Ashish Gangwani. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant has not paid the maintenance amount to the respondents, who are his two minor children, as was ordered by the learned Family Court for 3 payment of Rs. 1000/- per month to each child. It is further submitted that the said maintenance amount has not been paid for more than 05 years and 10 months. He also submits that twice execution proceedings were also initiated against the applicant, but the applicant failed to appear before the trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. The applicant undertakes to appear before the Family Court on 25.08.2025, and participate in the execution proceedings, failing which the applicant shall be brought before the Court concerned by the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 8. Considering the submissions made by both parties and the fact that the applicant has now undertaken to appear before the Family Court on the next date so fixed by this Court, no further direction is required at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to pursue appropriate remedy in accordance with law in case of non-compliance. 9. Accordingly, this revision petition stands disposed of. 10. Prayer for quashing of the impugned order is refused. 11. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan