1 2025:CGHC:28613 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 683 of 2019 Dhaneshwari Bai D/o Pitambar Nishad, Aged About 32 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As W/o Shri Purushottam Nishad In Impugned Order ) Aged About 32 Years, R/o Rambag, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Purushottam Nishad S/o Shri Budhuram Nishad, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Mandraud, Police Station And Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Gultai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned counsel learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for respondent. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.164/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and has set-aside the order dated 12.08.2011 for maintenance to the applicant to the tune of Rs.1000/- per month. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that that the applicant was legally wedded wife of the respondent. She had earlier filed an application Under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the Respondent and with the consent of parties vide order dated 12.08.2011, in Misc. Cr. Case No. 64/2010, maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month was awarded to the applicant. Further, with the consent of the parties U/s. 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage was dissolved vide judgment 05.07.2014, passed in Civil Suit No. 145-A/2013. On 26.10.2016, the respondent filed an application Under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month awarded to the applicant vide order dated 05.07.2014 on the ground that the applicant is living in adultery with a person named Pankaj Thakur, S/o. Raghavendra Thakur. Despite the objection of the applicant, the learned Family Court allowed the aforesaid amendment which was incorporated in the application Under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court surprisingly allowed 3 the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., observing that the statements of witnesses show that they had earlier seen the applicant in compromising position with Pankaj Thakur and therefore it is proved that the applicant is living in adultery and hence she is not entitled for the maintenance awarded vide order dated 12.08.2011. The applicant is aggrieved by the aforesaid order has preferred this instant revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that impugned order is incorrect, erroneous and contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the marriage between the applicant and the respondent has been dissolved vide judgment dated 05.07.2014 and since last 12 years she has been residing at village Sirve with her maternal grand- parents. Apparently, the Respondent has planted fake witnesses to contend that at some unspecified earlier point of time they had seen the applicant in compromising position with Pankaj Thakur. Such vague, unsubstantiated and belated allegations regarding the character of the applicant deserve to be thrown out at the outset. However, for reasons best known to the Presiding Judge, the same have been relied on to arrive at the conclusion that the applicant is living in adultery. Tt is pertinent to point out that such allegations were never raised in the past, not even at the time of alleged occurrence. Initially the application Under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was filed by the Respondent for setting aside the order dated 05.07.2014, which was the judgment dissolving the marriage by 4 mutual consent. After the conclusion of the final arguments, the learned Presiding Judge allowed the Respondent to amend the application and challenge the order dated 12.08.2011, passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 64/2010, whereby maintenance was awarded with the consent of the parties. That, allowing such amendment at the concluding stage of proceedings itself demonstrates the illegality committed by the learned Court below. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court after considering the entire situation and circumstances of the parties have come to the conclusion that that the applicant is not entitled for maintenance as it has been proved well on the basis of preponderance of possibilities that the applicant Dhaneshwari Bai is living an adulterous life with another man after divorce. 8. 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 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal