1 2025:CGHC:22069 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1668 of 2025 1 - Megha Sethe W/o Gitendra Jangde Aged About 25 Years R/o Boriyakhurd, Shraddha Vihar Colony, P.S. - Tikrapara, Tehsil - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Gitendra Jangde S/o Bhushan Ram Jangde Aged About 28 Years R/o P.W.S. Colony, Civil Lines, Dhamtari, Dist. - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advcoate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 15.05.2025 1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been preferred by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the learned First Additional ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Date: 2025.05.16 10:54:44 +0530 2 Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Case No. 454/2023. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC (as then applicable) seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000 from the respondent, claiming to be his legally wedded wife. The respondent entered appearance and filed his reply denying the existence of any marriage with the petitioner. However, he admitted the registration of an FIR against him under Section 439/21 at Police Station Kotwali, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, and also acknowledged that he had approached the Hon’ble High Court for anticipatory bail, which was granted in MCRCA No. 11/2022. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the respondent has categorically denied the esxistence of marriage before the Learned Court below, and the statement made by the respondent in the anticipatory bail application filed before this Hon’ble Court is antithetical to that denial, the inconsistency becomes apparent. This contradiction can be verified from the advocate, who acted as the identifying witness in the 3 anticipatory bail application and is also the respondent's next friend in the maintenance case currently pending before the Learned Court below. He goes on to submit that the status of the marriage is a germane issue in the pending case, the contradictory statements made before different courts must be duly examined and converted into facts through proper legal procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the exigencies of the situation, principles of fair play, and judicial discretion ought to be exercised in favor of justice. The Court should also bear in mind that no party in a trial should be foreclosed from correcting procedural or factual errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or relevant material was omitted from the record due to inadvertence or oversight. Therefore, he pleads to allow this criminal revision and set aside the order impugned herein dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P/5). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused impugned order passed by the concerned Family Court with an utmost circumspection. 4 5. Upon due consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court has committed no legal error, jurisdictional infirmity, or perversity in passing the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P/5). At this stage, no exceptional or compelling ground is made out to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. The discretion exercised by the Family Court appears to be based on a reasoned consideration of facts and law. 6. Accordingly, this revision petition is liable to be and stands dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Saxena