1 2025:CGHC:36484 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 353 of 2024 Dagesh Sahu S/o Late Shri Basant Kumar Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Devur Mandir, Ward No. 2 Gurur, Tehsil Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Ledpura 185 Bataliyan, Kashmir, Srinagar. ... Applicant versus Smt. Premlata Sahu W/o Dagesh Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kenvatintola, Tehsil Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records from the Court below in RCC No. 25/2022 from the Ld. Judge, Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.29 19:34:33 +0530 2 2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to allow this revision and set-aside the order dated 21.08.2023, and remand the matter back for the fresh adjudication, in the interest of justice. 3. Any other relief this Hon’ble High Court deems fit.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the applicant is that the applicant and the respondent entered into marital ties on 21.11.2019, following all Hindu rites and rituals at Village Kenvatintola, Kanker. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein she alleged that the mother of the applicant was not willing to reside with her, and thus the applicant had rented a house at Village Purur and resided there with the respondent for a few days. Thereafter, the applicant left the respondent due to his job. In the said application, it is further alleged that when the applicant returned from his job after 10 months, he used to come home in a drunken state, abuse, and physically harass the respondent. Ultimately, on 17.11.20520, he ousted the respondent from the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint before Police Station Purur, where counseling was conducted. Following the counseling, both parties returned home together and started living at Dhamtari in a rented house. However, after a few days, the applicant resumed his earlier behavior and also started doubting the character of the respondent, without any basis, the respondent also alleged in her application that the applicant and his mother refused to accept her as part of the family and did not allow her to enter the matrimonial house. Hence, the respondent moved an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Proceedings before the learned Family Court were initiated, and the applicant was declared ex-parte. A copy of the order-sheet dated 3 18/04/2022 to 21/08/2023 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A2. 5. On 21.08.2023, the order was passed in favor of the respondent, of which the applicant was unaware. It was only when the respondent filed an application under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking arrears of maintenance that the applicant received the summons. A copy of the summons along with a copy of the application under Section 125(3) is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A3. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure A1) passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, is bad in law, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of criminal justice. The respondent has concealed the fact that she had earlier filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Balod, which was subsequently withdrawn for reasons best known to her. Thus, the respondent has not come with clean hands before the learned Family Court. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to consider the fact that the respondent did not submit the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the principles of natural justice have been violated as the respondent, by employing manipulative tactics, managed to get the present appellant declared ex-parte, thereby depriving the appellant of an opportunity to present his defence. Learned Family Court ought to have considered that, as per the respondent’s own version, the applicant had rented a house in Village Purur and at Dhamtari for the respondent’s residence so that she could live peacefully, despite the alleged strained relationship between her and the applicant’s mother. If the intention of the applicant was to desert the respondent, he would not 4 have incurred expenses on renting a separate house for her. He also submits that the actual fact is that the respondent is not comfortable with the applicant’s occupation, and therefore, the present case has been filed solely to harass the applicant. The respondent deliberately did not mention the complete address in the notices of the process fee, intending to prevent the applicant from receiving them, thereby playing fraud upon the learned Family Court. The impugned order is extremely harsh, and it is the judicial conscience that demands the matter be considered by duly following the principles of natural justice—which, in this case, have not been followed due to the fraudulent conduct of the respondent. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek