1 2025:CGHC:41309 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 614 of 2024 Smt. Geeta Singh W/o Shri Sadharan Singh Maravi Aged About 40 Years R/o Budhabigicha, Rajpur, Tahsil Rajpur, Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur (C.G.) Present Address Village Sargwan, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Sadharan Singh Maravi S/o Shri Ratan Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Poprenga, Police Station, Tahsil And District Sitapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Krishna Kant Prajapati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Palash Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Krishna Kant Prajapati, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 161/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125(5) of CrPC filed by the respondent. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the respondent filed an application under section 125(5) of the CrPC for setting aside of the order dated 21.04.2016 passed for grating maintenance to the applicant/wife before the Learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.), as per the averments of the application it has been stated by the respondent/husband that in Misc. Cri. Case No. 85/15 vide order dated 21.04.2016, the respondent/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand Rupees only) per month to the applicant/wife. However, as per the averments of the application it has been stated by the respondent/husband that he has already paid a sum of 1,50,000/- (One Lakhs Fifty Thousand Rupees only) to the applicant/wife. Further, in the case of Domestic Violence i.e. R.N.J.C. 43/15 filed by the applicant/wife before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sitapur, vide order dated 30.01.2016, the respondent/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand Rupees only) per month to the applicant/wife. Therefore, as per law, the applicant/wife is not entitled to receive amount of maintenance from the order of two different Courts. The applicant/wife had misguided and cleverly took the order of maintenance in her favour. It was further pleaded that since 2016, the applicant/wife is residing in adultery with one Satyanarayan Maravi in the rented house of Anthu Ram at Village Sargaon, Police Station & Tahsil-Ambikapur and in this regard the panchanama dated 30.06.2019 was also prepared by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Silma, Up-Panchayat Batauli, District- Sarguja (C.G.) along with other 11 members. Therefore, it was prayed that the application under section 125(5) of the CrPC filed by the respondent/husband is liable to be allowed. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has 3 denied the averments raised by the respondent. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has allowed the application under Section 125(5) of CrPC filed by the respondent, and set-aside the order dated 21.04.2016 passed by the learned Family Court concerned in Misc. Cr. Case No. 85/2016 for granting maintenance to the applicant/wife. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that the respondent/husband had preformed the second marriage with one Manju Devi, while he was still having a marred wife and thereafter, drove the applicant/wife from his house by beating her, therefore, she has been living in her mother’s house since 4 years. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 161/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125(5) of CrPC filed by the respondent, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar