Order on Board

05/02/2025 As both the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the same party, they are being decided by this common order.

2. FA(MAT) No.34/2025 has been filed by the appellant / husband against order dated 12/09/2024 passed by the 2^nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur(CG) in MCC No.491/2024 and FA(MAT) No.35/2025 has been filed by the appellant against order dated 12/09/2024 passed by the 2^nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (CG) in MCC No.492/2024 whereby the learned Family Court dismissed the applications filed by the appellant / husband under Section 195, 340 of CrPC on 25/04/2024.

3. Facts which are emerging are that marriage of the appellant and respondent – Anjali Jain was solemnized on 27/04/2005 and out of their wedlock, they have a daughter – Divyansha who was born on 07/07/2007. The respondent – Anjali Jain left the house of the appellant and thereafter, she filed a complaint on 14/09/2010. She filed various complaints against the appellant and she also filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC and the learned Family Court vide order dated 24/10/2018 directed the appellant to pay Rs.5,000/- as maintenance for daughter Divyansha Jain. It is submitted that the appellant was paying the maintenance amount regularly but the respondent / wife filed an application on behalf of the minor daughter Divyansha Jain under Section 125 (3) of CrPC before the Family Court on 08/04/2024 alleging that the appellant had not paid maintenance during the period of Covid 19 and he is liable to pay Rs.80,500/- and in another MCC, she filed application under Section 125 (3) of the CrPC before the Family Court on 08/04/2024 alleging that the appellant had not paid the maintenance amount from January, 2023 to February, 2024 amounting to Rs.65,000/-. Learned Family Court registered both the applications as MCC No.491/24 and MCC No.492/24 and in support of her application, she also filed affidavit Annexure A/11. The appellant / husband filed an application under Section 195 and 340 of CrPC on the ground that the respondent / wife has deliberately filed false affidavit before the trial Court. Therefore criminal proceedings may be initiated against the respondent / wife but vide impugned order dated 12/09/2024, learned trial Court rejected the application of the appellant in both the cases and as the respondent / wife did not press her application, therefore, both the applications were dismissed as withdrawn on the same day. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/ husband.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned orders are illegal and erroneous. It is submitted that the respondent / wife sworn in false affidavit before the learned Family Court knowing fully well that such false affidavit if treated to be proved can lead to imprisonment of the appellant – Pravin Kumar Jain. It is submitted that all the ingredients of offence as defined under Section 191, 192, 196, 199, 200, 209, 210 of IPC are present in the illegal action of respondent No.1. Learned Family Court committed gross error in accepting the statement of respondent No.1 that she had filed the application by mistake. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 had deliberately filed the application under Section 125 (3) of the CrPC supported with the affidavit just to harass the appellant. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that the action of respondent No.1 is nothing but abuse of the process of law. The excuse given by respondent No.1 in her reply is unacceptable and in as much as respondent No.1 being a natural guardian of daughter and handling the bank account of Ku. Divyansha Jain could not have been ignorant of the transaction made in the bank account. Therefore, the impugned orders in both the cases are liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Suo Motu proceedings against