1 2025:CGHC:25083 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 323 of 2018 Radheshyam Koshley S/o Sonu Koshley Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sendari, Tah. Katghora, Dist. Korba Chhattisgarh Present Address Bankimongra, Gajra Side, Quarter 102/7, Tah. Katghora, Dist. Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Rajani Koshley W/o Radheshyam Koshley Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Sendari, Tah. Katghora, Dist. Korba Chhattisgarh Present Address C/o Resham Lal Janjgde, Village Kera, P. S. Navagarh, Dist. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ashish Kumar S/o Radheshyam Koshley Aged About 11 Years Respondent No. 2 Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajni Koshley ( Respondent No. 1)r/o Village Sendari, Tah. Katghora, Dist. Korba Chhattisgarh Present Address C/o Resham Lal Janjgde, Village Kera, P. S. Navagarh, Dist. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Subham S/o Radheshyam Koshley Aged About 9 Years Respondent No. 3 Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajni Koshley ( Respondent No. 1)r/o Village Sendari, Tah. Katghora, Dist. Korba Chhattisgarh Present Address C/o Resham Lal Janjgde, Village Kera, P. S. Navagarh, Dist. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the court below, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent /Smt. Rajni Kosle was lawfully married to Radheshyam on 24.04.2011, and from their happy marital life, two children were born: non-applicant No. 2, Ashish Kumar (aged 8 years), and non-applicant No. 3, Shubham (aged 6 years). For the past 3–4 years, Radheshyam had been accusing Rajni Kosle of having a questionable character, started physically abusing her and eventually threw her out of the house. An application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed. In compliance with the decision of that case, the non-applicant went to reside with the applicant, but the very next day, the applicant began assaulting her and behaved inappropriately. He used to threaten to kill her and continued to harass her. As a result, the non-applicant No.1 resides with her parents in Village Kera, District Janjgir. The non-applicant No.1 was in poor health and unable to work or support herself and her children. 3 3. Thereafter, due to all these circumstances, an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C was filed by the respondents before the learned Family Court, Janjgir-Champa for grant of maintenance of Rs. 12000/- as the same application was partly allowed and the applicant/husband was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- to the Non- applicant No.1, Rs. 2000/- to Non-applicant No.2 and Rs. 1800/- to Non-applicant No.3 (total Rs. 6800/-) as maintenance per month in favour of respondents. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant/husband preferred an application before the learned Family Court, Janjgir-Champa for reduction in the aforesaid maintenance amount and after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court concerned dismissed the same. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the learned Family Court is bad both on facts and in law. He further submits that the learned family Court erred in ignoring the fact that the respondent No.01 is living adulterous life with Sanjay Sahu without legal divorce to the applicant. The learned family Court erred in ignoring the evidence available on record where the Sanjay Sahu has admitted his marriage with the respondent No.01. The learned Family Court erred in ignoring the evidence of Chhater Singh wherein Chhater Singh has admitted that the Sanjay Sahu and respondent No.01 were his tenant and they were leading married life. The learned Family Court erred in not considering the documents filed by the applicant wherein the marriage of the Sanjay Sahu and respondent No.01 is established. 4 The learned family Court erred in dismissing the application without appreciating the provision of Criminal Procedure Code and Family Court Act. Therefore, the revision is liable to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondent submits that both the Courts have rightly passed the orders, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the records of the Family Court. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that based on well-established principles of law, if no statement has been made regarding a significant fact, then no matter how much evidence is presented regarding that fact, it shall not be accepted. Therefore, the testimonies of witnesses Chhatarsingh, Santosh, and Gajju are not admissible to support the claim that Sanjay Sahu and Non- applicant No. 1 were living in an adulterous relationship at Chhatarsingh’s house. The applicant, Radheshyam, in support of his evidence, has submitted photocopies of news articles from Haribhoomi, Dainik Bhaskar, and Patrika, marked as Exhibits P-02 “C” to P-04 “C”. Upon reviewing these documents, it appears that Sanjay Sahu had made a deadly attack on Non-applicant No. 1. These newspapers, dated 23.12.2015, reported that Rajni Kosle (age 28) was residing at House No. 81/5. Similarly, in the same newspapers, Sanjay Sahu also mentioned that Non-applicant No. 1 was living at House No. 81/5. However, the applicant Radheshyam has not provided any evidence to show that Non-applicant No. 1 left 5 Chhatarsingh’s house to live with Sanjay Sahu at House No. 81/5. Therefore, based on the above discussion, the applicant’s evidence does not establish that Non-applicant No. 1 married Sanjay Sahu through a notarized agreement and lived with him at various places in an adulterous relationship. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal