1 2025:CGHC:34571 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 340 of 2025 1 - Shikha Suryavanshi W/o Saurabh Suryavanshi Aged About 33 Years R/o C/o Rakesh Agrawal Shikshit Nagar Bmy Charoda Police Station Purani Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) 2 - Sankalp Suryavanshi S/o Saurabh Suryavanshi Aged About 9 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Shikha Suryavanshi W/o Saurbh Suryavanshi R/o C/o Rakesh Agrawal Shikshit Nagar BMY Charoda Police Station Purani Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Saurabh Suryavanshi S/o Ramavtar Suryavasnhi Aged About 38 Years R/o Sai Bhawan Deewanbada Manegaon Khamhariya Jabalpur District - Jabalpur (M.P.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Saurabh Suryavanshi, in person. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Saurabh Suryavanshi, appeared before this Court in person. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 and further be pleased to pass an order for consideration for the case on merit by taking cognizance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that it is undisputed fact that the applicant No.1 is the wife and applicant No.2 is son of the non-applicant. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) for grant of maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from non-applicant, which was registered as Case No. 314/2020 party's name bearing "Shikha Suryavanshi & another Vs. Saurabh Suryavanshi". During the pendency of the case, the non- applicant filed an objection with regard to the tenability of the case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of territorial jurisdiction which was further challenged before a Coordinate Bench of this Court which was registered as WP(227) No. 478/2024 party's name "Saurabh Suryavanshi Vs. Shikha Suryavanshi & another" whereby a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been pleased to pass an order dated 18.06.2024 and remitted back the case for consideration of territorial jurisdiction after framing preliminary issue upon territorial jurisdiction of the case. 4. In compliance of order dated 18.06.2024, learned Family Court framed issues with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the case and after hearing of the parties, decided the case and dismissed the 3 application filed by the applicants as jurisdiction, application has been filed by the applicants. 5. The fact of the case is that the applicant No.1 and non-applicant got married according to Hindu rites and rituals at Jabalpur (M.P.) and applicant No.2 born out of marriage wedlock of the applicant No.1 and non-applicant on 28.10.2011. After marriage, the applicant No.1 lived at Jabalpur (M.P.), thereafter due to transfer of the non- applicant after 2 years of the marriage, the applicants started living at Chhindwada (M.P.) wherein under the pressure of non-applicant, applicant No.1 started teaching job at private school, wherein the applicants stayed 6 years along with non-applicant, thereafter non- applicant left the applicants and came back at Jabalpur (M.P.). Since 15.12.2019 non-applicant is living at Jabalpur, left the applicants at their fate, meanwhile, no care and caution was taken by the non-applicant. On the contrary the applicant No.1 tried to pacify the matter but all efforts became vain, therefore, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court concerned for maintenance from the non- applicant. 6. The non-applicant filed his reply and raised objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Family Court for taking cognizance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Non-applicant denied the version of the applicants and prayed for dismissal of the application under Section 125 of CRPC. 7. The learned Family Court concerned considering the material available on record, passed the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 4 dismissed the application of the applicants on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the Court for taking cognizance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant preferred the instant revision. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 is bad in law as well as illegal and therefore it is liable to be set-aside. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that last residence of the couple at present place of resident at BMY Charoda, Old Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) therefore, cause of action arose, more than that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the rent agreement executed between the applicant No.1 and land lord which is documentary evidence and passed the impugned order by rejecting application under Section 125 of CrPC. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the law with regard to the taking cognizance under Section 125 of CrPC which is not required strict compliance of the Indian Evidence Act on the contrary it is expected from learned Family Court to adopt the liberal view during the taking cognizance under 125 of CrPC and also failed to consider the provision of Section 7 & 8 of the Family Court Act and Section 126 of CrPC. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that another case under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act is pending before the learned Family Court, Durg which has been registered as Civil Suit No. 954/2023 party's name "Shikha Suryavanshi Vs. Saurabh Suryavanshi" and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 12.11.2024 in case WP(227) No. 452/2024 5 pleased to pass an order for sending the case for mediation which is pending before the learned Family Court, Durg, despite of it impugned order has been passed and dismissed the application of the applicants only on the basis of territorial jurisdiction of the case, which is liable to be quashed. The learned Family Court also failed to appreciate that cases filed by the parties before the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court pleased to pass and order with regard to the pending cases before Family Court, Durg (C.G.) and Chhindwada (M.P.). Therefore, he prays that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Saurabh Suryavanshi, non-applicant in person opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the applicant No.1 has willfully and knowingly filed a false affidavit in support of the present Criminal Revision by furnishing an incorrect residential address. The applicant No.1 has falsely claimed to be residing at "R/o - Rakesh Agarwal, Shikshit Nagar, B.M.Y. Charoda, Police Station Old Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)" whereas she is, in fact, residing in Chhindwara (Μ.Ρ.), as consistently recorded by various Courts including Hon'ble Supreme Court. This misrepresentation amounts to suppression of material facts and is a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court and Family Court in order to create territorial jurisdiction. He further submits that the applicant No.1 has persistently engaged in filing multiple frivolous and vexatious proceedings against the Non- applicant and playing fraud with the court by constantly making false averments, all of which have been dismissed by competent courts on 6 merits or jurisdictional grounds, as shown in table which was mentioned by making table in the reply. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its orders dated 21.02.2024 and 15.10.2024 in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 3262/2023 and Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 713/2024 respectively, has clearly held that the applicant No.1 resides in Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh. Despite this, the applicant has deliberately suppressed her true place of residence and filed false affidavits showing Durg (C.G.) as her address, amounting to willful misrepresentation. Contradictory Addresses Filed on Same Date, on 22.03.2024, the applicant No.1 filed two separate cases with two different addresses, in Criminal Revision No. 381/2024, Address mentioned as Shikshit Nagar, BMY Charoda, Bhilai. In WP(227) No. 284/2024: Address mentioned as Shastri Nagar, Supela, Bhilai. Both sworn affidavits are false, as the applicant No.1 was actually residing in Chhindwara (M.P.) and working there as a teacher. This conduct amounts to perjury and abuse of the judicial process. He further submits that the applicant No.1 is intentionally filing cases in Chhattisgarh with the sole aim of harassing the Non-Applicant, draining his time and resources, and preventing him from visiting Chhindwara to meet his child. This repeated filing of false and frivolous litigation constitutes mental and legal harassment. The Family Court at Durg has already dismissed Civil Suit No. 954/2023 (under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act) for lack of territorial jurisdiction, confirming that both parties last resided in Chhindwara in 2019. The alleged rent agreement in Bhilai was not proved and was rejected by the Court. He lastly submits that 7 the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rightly passed the impugned order, in which no interference is called for. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. Considering the evidence and circumstances presented in this case, the learned Family Court concerned rejected the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C on the ground that the learned Family Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Family Court, by carefully evaluating the pleadings and evidence, has taken a lawful and justified decision. 12. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal