1 2025:CGHC:12745 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 919 of 2025 • A. Santosh S/o Late Shri A. Chandrashekhar Rao Aged About 39 Years R/o 802/c Blok Royal City Borsi Durg District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. A. Rajni W/o Shri A. Santosh D/o Shri A. Kameshwar Rao Aged About 37 Years Posted As A Lecturer In Government Middle School Bharar Block Patan District - Durg (C.G.) R/o Care Of A. Kameshwar Rao Flat No. 404 Block - A Phase - 1 Anand Vihar Borsi Durg District - Durg (C.G.) 2. A. Ashana D/o A. Santosh Aged About 8 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother A. Rajni W/o Shri A. Santosh D/o Shri A. Kameshwar Rao Aged About 37 Years R/o Care Of A. Kameshwar Rao Flat No. 404 Block- A Phase - 1 Anand Vihar Borsi Durg District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Curtis Collins, Advocate For Respondents : None. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 18/03/2025 1. The present criminal revision arises out of the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in case M.J.C. No. 126/2019, VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.04.21 14:02:01 +0530 2 wherein respondents have file in interim application in support an affidavit for the Court order dated 17.05.2024, the learned Family Court without going to the factual situation and the material fact and documentary evidence dismissed the application. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent was given an opportunity again by the (Previous Presiding Officer) of the family court to file an affidavit in accordance with the guidelines and directions issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs Neha on dated 17.05.2024, the Family Court was consider enough to give an opportunity to comply with the guidelines despite of the fact that the proceeding u/s 340 Cr.P.C. is pending against the respondent for Suppression of material facts, the above mentioned facts can be observed by the perusal of order sheet dated 17.05.2024. The respondent no.1 filed an affidavit in accordance with guidelines the supreme Court in Rajnesh vs Neha in the affidavit submitted by the respondent has not disclosed her assets and once again suppressed material facts and which has laid to filling of false affidavit before the family court which is contravention of the parameters fixed by the Hon'ble supreme court which categorically puts stipulation in para 72.8 the operative part of para 72.8 runs as under the pleading made in the applications for maintenance and relies filed should be responsible pleadings if false statement and misrepresentation are made, the court may consider initiation of proceeding u/s 340 of Cr.P.C. and for contempt of court. the 3 petitioner filed an application on dated 15.10.2024 before the court for the contempt action against the willful disobedient of court order and suppression of material facts with support of false affidavit which laid to offence u/s 227, 229, and 246 of BNS for the reason that the affidavit filed in accordance with the Supreme Court guidelines on dated 27.05.2024 has been presented by suppressing material fact that the respondent has purchased flat and the flat has been registered through a sell deed on dated 18.10.2023 for a consideration amounting to rupees 22,50,000/- 3. That the application for contempt and willful disobedient of the court order and filling of false affidavit which leads to offence u/s 227, 229 and 246 of BNS has been filed by the petitioner on dated 15.10.2024 along with affidavit and the respondents has filed reply on dated 16.12.2024. The court below on dated 29.01.2025 deciding the above mentioned application and while deciding the application passed the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 has not been considered on the accordance with the imperative command of the Supreme Court but the order is passed on the basis of conjuncture and sermisess which cannot be termed as substantial finding of fact the operative part of the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Supreme Court has declared is judgment in para 72.8 if false statement and misrepresentation are made the court may consider initiation of proceeding u/s 340 CrPC and for contempt of 4 Court. The impugned order passed by the learned court below on dated 29.01.2025 is not an accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court and the principle laid down guidelines under article 142 of the Indian Constitution the learned court fell in wrongful exercise of lawful authority and has passed the order against the letter and spirit of the law laid down by the apex court. He also submits that the learned family court which has passed the impugned order on the basis of deeming fiction and has given liberty to the respondent with regards to the assets which was compulsory to be disclosed in accordance with the direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the learned below court has failed to observe the records and deposition made by the respondent and in which the respondent has accepted the fact that she is working has permanent lecturer and also purchased the assets which can be confirmed by the reply filed by the respondent. He further submits that the learned court that failed to appreciate that the respondent has accepted the deposition that she has not produced any document with regards to change of name of the respondent no.2. He lastly submits that the affidavit sworn by the respondent R/1 state that I understand that any false statement in this affidavit, apart from being contempt of court, may also constitute an offence under section 199 read with sections 191 and 193 of the Indian Penal code punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and fine, and section 209 of the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment up to two years and fine. I 5 have read and understood section, 191, 193, 199, and 209 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the mode and the manner in which impugned order passed has set bed president and which may be other litigates to escape from their liability and such an act would defeated the very purpose of guideline issued by the Supreme Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 has not filed the affidavit as per guideline given in the case of Rajesh vs. Neha by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned Family Court has not held that false affidavit given by the respondent No.1. However, it is relevant from document respondent No.1 has not filed his salary slip of her income and also has not filed loan document regarding purchase of flat therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to file their salary slip of previous three months and copy of loan documents regarding purchase of flat before learned Family Court. 7. With aforesaid directions/observations instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE vaishali