1 2025:CGHC:12667 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1154 of 2015 1. Sapana Panjwani S/o Rajesh Panjwani Aged About 47 Years R/o Street No. 12, Quarter No. 823, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Sweta Panjwani D/o Rajesh Panjwani Aged About 18 Years R/o Street No. 12, Quarter No. 823, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. Karan Panjwani S/o Rajesh Panjwani Aged About 16 Years Minor Guardian Mother Smt. Sapna Panjwani, R/o Street No. 12, Quarter No. 823, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. .. Applicants versus Rajesh Panjwani S/o Late Thakur Prasad Panjwani Aged About 52 Years R/o Street No. 12, Quarter No. 823, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant(s) : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /03/2025 1. Heard Ms. Renu Kochar, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.03.19 10:53:07 +0530 2 2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.09.2015 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.261/2014, afÏrming the judgment dated 05.08.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in MJC Case No.254/2013, whereby the learned JMFC, Durg has dismissed the MJC Case No.254/2013 filed by the applicants. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and Respondent was solemnized on November 22, 1990, according to Hindu rituals. Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were born from this marriage. Applicant No. 2 is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Engineering degree, while applicant No. 3 is studying in Class XII. The Respondent has a short temper and frequently becomes violent over minor issues. He has consistently threatened to divorce applicant No. 1, abandon the applicants, and live a separate life. Furthermore, the Respondent has ceased providing financial support for household expenses and the education of applicant Nos. 2 and 3, effectively deserting the applicants. The applicants reside in a house located in Shanti Nagar, Bhilai. However, the Respondent is coercing the applicants to vacate the premises and relocate to Kumhari. The Respondent's behavior towards the applicants has been unacceptable. Applicant No. 1 has been subjected to verbal abuse and mental torture, with the Respondent frequently remarking that she belongs to a family of beggars. Applicant No. 1 has endured both mental and physical torment. The Respondent, who has never been fond of his wife, has 3 consistently used abusive language and threatened to harm her if she approaches him. As a result, she has been forced to reside in a separate room. 4. The Respondent has treated applicant No. 1 like a slave. As a medical professional, the Respondent earns a substantial income, ranging from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per month. Additionally, he owns plots in Kailash Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg, as well as three houses in Kumhari, District Durg, and one house in Shardapara, Bhilai, which he has rented out. The Respondent's total monthly income is approximately Rs.100,000/-. Despite their marital relationship, the Respondent has failed to provide even a single penny to applicant No. 1. As a result, applicant No. 1 has been left to fend for herself, residing in the house at Shanti Nagar, Bhilai. Moreover, the Respondent has shown no love or affection towards his children. The Respondent has not only deserted the applicants but has also initiated divorce proceedings. His actions have made life unbearable for the applicants, leaving them without financial support and struggling to survive with two children. The lower court, via its order dated August 5, 2014, dismissed the applicant’s claim under Sections 12 and 17-22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Being aggrieved by this decision, the applicants filed a Criminal Appeal under Section 29 before the 4th Session Judge, Durg, District Durg. The learned appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants. Hence, the revision petition. 4 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the both the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court failed to consider the crucial fact that the Respondent had deserted the applicants and ceased providing financial support. Despite this, applicant No. 1 managed to pay her children's fees by selling her jewelry, both the Courts have overlooked the receipt of fees deposited by the applicants. The Respondent's behavior was inhumane, as he would physically abuse applicant No. 1 and then take her to psychiatrists. The courts below failed to consider the Respondent's conduct and inhumane behavior. She further submits that both the Courts neglected to consider that the applicants had no source of income, making it difÏcult for applicant No. 1 to manage household expenses and educational fees for her children. The Respondent's practice of taking receipts for pocket money given to his children demonstrates that he treated his financial support as charity rather than a familial obligation. She also submits that both the Courts erred in accepting the Respondent's version of events, which falsely claimed that applicant Nos. 2 and 3 would physically abuse and verbally harass their father and grandmother. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that learned trial Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, which has been afÏrmed by learned appellate Court, in which no interference is called for. 5 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the trial Court has observed that the statements made by the applicant during cross-examination, as well as the facts presented by the respondent witnesses, clearly indicate that the respondent has been fulfilling his familial responsibilities towards the applicants, both during their cohabitation and after their separation. There were disputes between the applicant and her mother-in-law due to the applicant's suspicious nature and her failure to treat her mother-in-law with respect. The respondent has been taking care of his elderly mother, his ailing and disabled older brother and sister-in-law, as well as his three married sisters, fulfilling his social and familial obligations. Despite being married for 24 years, the applicant never complained about the respondent's physical and mental abuse, nor did she present any witnesses to testify against him in Court. It was only after the respondent filed for divorce that the applicant submitted an application to this Court under the Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, the applicant's statements are not credible. Applicants No. 2 and 3 are adult children and are not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent under the law. Although the law provides for maintenance to be given to unmarried, adult, and disabled daughters, Applicant No. 2 is not disabled or suffering from any illness. She is a student pursuing engineering. The applicants have failed to prove that the respondent committed domestic violence against them. 6 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the trial Court as well as the the appellate Court, I am of the view that both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek