1 2025:CGHC:28624 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 530 of 2019 Lokesh Tamrakar S/o Shri Ramkumar Tamrakar Aged About 43 Years R/o Lily Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Lubhani Tamrakar D/o Late Shri Umashankar Tamrakar Aged About 39 Years R/o Care Of Shri Rajkumar Tamrakar, Tamer Para, Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aman Tamrakar holding the brief of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Aman Tamrakar, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.417/2015, whereby, learned Family Court dismissed the application under Section 127 fo CrPC filed the applicant. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on May 11, 2003, at Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. The applicant filed an application under Section 127 of the CrPC, 1973, for setting aside the order dated February 24, 2009, passed in Case No. 259/2008, whereby Rs.1,200 per month was awarded to the respondent after mutual settlement between both parties. The applicant pleaded that there has been a change in circumstances, as divorce has been granted in his favor on the ground of cruelty committed by the non-applicant against him. He also claimed that the respondent is an educated and working skilled lady capable of meeting her needs and livelihood. The applicant further stated that he is a civil judge aspirant who has cleared the prelims several times and that the respondent files applications before the Family Court with the intent to harass and mentally torture him. 4. The respondent filed a reply denying all the allegations and averments made in the application and pleaded for dismissal of the applicant's application. After completion of pleadings, examination of witnesses, evaluation of evidence, and hearing both parties, the Learned Trial Court dismissed the application 3 filed by the applicant. The applicant is challenging the impugned order on the grounds that it is patently illegal, arbitrary, perverse, and erroneous, passed by overlooking the facts and circumstances of the present case, lacking judicious application of mind, and wholly in contravention of the settled legal position. Therefore, the applicant seeks to quash/set aside the impugned order. Hence, the criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is patently illegal and was passed in a wholly unjustified, unreasonable, and unfair manner, contravening the settled legal position regarding maintenance, making it liable to be quashed/set aside. He further submits that the Family Court erred in not appreciating the fact that a decree of divorce was granted to the applicant on the ground of cruelty committed by the respondent, which makes her not entitled to any maintenance. Furthermore, the Family Court overlooked the fact that the respondent filed a false case of domestic violence against the applicant, which was dismissed, and the appeal was also dismissed. He also submits that the Family Court erred in not considering the fact that the respondent is living separately from the applicant for over 14 years, is an educated and skilled woman with a separate source of income, and is capable of meeting her needs. Given the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty by the wife, there is no point in granting maintenance to the respondent. Moreover, the respondent presented contradictory facts and 4 submissions/statements before the Family Court and never approached the Court with clean hands, which the Family Court overlooked while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court dismissed the application under Section 127 fo CrPC filed the applicant observing affidavits of both the parties as primary evidence and have been cross-examined by the opposing party. The events mentioned in the applicant's affidavit prior to the order dated February 24, 2009, are irrelevant because they pertain to the period before the order was passed based on mutual consent. The key fact regarding the circumstances after the order is that the parties got divorced on July 4, 2009. This divorce was not based on mutual consent, and the proceedings were contested, with the non-applicant being ex-parte. The divorce order did not mention anything about maintenance for the applicant. The law is clear that even after divorce, a wife has the right to maintenance 5 in certain circumstances. In this case, the applicant has neither pleaded nor proved that the respondent has remarried or is living in adultery after the divorce. The cruelty on which the divorce decree was based does not appear to be related to events that occurred after the order dated February 24, 2009. Therefore, the divorce does not provide a basis for setting aside the order dated February 24, 2009. 9. Regarding the change in the respondent’s financial situation, the applicant has not made any specific statement or provided evidence about her current employment, job, or income. There is no specific pleading or evidence about the respondent’s financial situation before and after the order dated February 24, 2009. The applicant admits in his cross-examination that he has not presented any document in the case regarding the respondent’s current income. There is no reliable oral evidence based on personal knowledge on this point. Therefore, it is not proven that there has been a change in the respondent’s financial situation after the order dated February 24, 2009. Similarly, there is no evidence that the applicant's financial situation has deteriorated since then. Based on the above analysis, the Family Court came to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground to set-aside the order dated February 24, 2009, passed in Case No. 259/2008. The applicant has failed to prove his case, therefore, the Family Court dismissed the application. 6 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil