1 2025:CGHC:41297 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 758 of 2024 Kheshendra Sethiya S/o Shankar Sethiya Aged About 27 Years Caste Sundi R/o Village Kashturi Sundipara Thana Nagarnaar Distt. Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Nikita W/o Shri Kheshendra Sethiya Aged About 24 Years Caste Sundi R/o Village Dhanpunji P.S. Nagarnaar Distt.- Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /0 8 /202 5 1. Heard Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent on I.A. No.01/2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of 218 days in filing the instant criminal revision. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.18 17:26:24 +0530 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2024 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 24.08.2023 passed by learned Family Court, Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.101/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of maintenance as well as interim maintenance, stating that her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 21.04.2015 according to their customs and at the time of marriage her father had given household articles (stridhan) as per his financial capacity. It was further alleged by her that from the very beginning of the marriage, the applicant and his family members subjected her to cruelty on account of insufficient dowry, demanding a car and cash. She further alleged that the applicant was having illicit relations with another lady and even told her that the said lady was his first wife. When the said fact came to the knowledge of that lady, she lodged a complaint against the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly dropped the respondent at her parental house and demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for her 3 return. Since then, she has been residing with her parents and the applicant, despite being employed in NMDC, neglected to maintain her. On receiving the said application, a case was registered and notices were issued. After receiving notices, the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his detailed reply denying all the allegations of the respondent. It was specifically submitted that the respondent is living in adultery and having relations with another person, and therefore dis-entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. It was further stated that the applicant is only temporarily working in NMDC earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month, whereas the respondent is a healthy lady and capable of maintaining herself. 5. The learned Family Court, after hearing both the parties, partly allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month towards maintenance from the date of application. Hence, the revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in not appreciating the matter in its right perspective. The respondent herself admitted in her FIR dated 23.12.2020 that she was having relations with one Jaya Kishor Bisoi, which clearly shows that she was living in adultery and hence not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Despite this, the Family Court wrongly awarded Rs. 7,000/- per month from the date of application, which is excessive and arbitrary. The Family Court failed to consider that though a 4 husband is bound to maintain his wife, a wife living in adultery cannot claim such relief. The findings of the Court below are based on conjectures and surmises and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. 7. 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. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 9. The provisions of Section 125(4) CrPC are explicit that – “No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for maintenance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband.” 10. In the present case, from the evidence on record, it has come that the respondent-wife was living in continuous intimacy with one Jaya Kishor Bisoi. The cross-examination of the respondent as well as the documentary material adduced clearly demonstrate that she was maintaining relationship with the said person. The explanation sought to be offered by her has not been accepted by the Family Court in its right perspective. 5 11. Once the factum of living in adultery is proved, the statutory bar under Section 125(4) CrPC squarely applies. The entitlement of the respondent-wife to claim maintenance thus ceases in law. The Family Court has failed to consider this vital aspect while granting maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt.) and Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 180, has held that a wife who is living in adultery is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC. It was held as under:- “6. Under this provision, a wife is not entitled to any maintenance allowance from her husband if she is living in adultery or if she has refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason or if they are living separately by mutual consent. Thus, all the circumstances contemplated by sub-section (4) of Section 125 CrPC presuppose the existence of matrimonial relations. The provision would be applicable where the marriage between the parties subsists and not where it has come to an end. Taking the three circumstances individually, it will be noticed that the first circumstance on account of which a wife is not entitled to claim maintenance allowance from her husband is that she is living in adultery. Now, adultery is the sexual intercourse of two persons, either of whom is married to a third person. This clearly supposes the subsistence of marriage between the husband and wife and if during the subsistence of marriage, the wife lives in adultery, she cannot 6 claim maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 13. In view of the above, I am of the firm opinion that the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) in MJC No. 101/2019 suffers from perversity and illegality inasmuch as it has granted maintenance to a wife who is clearly dis-entitled under the statute. 14. Consequently, this Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) in MJC No. 101/2019 is set- aside. 15. Maintenance amount, if any, already paid pursuant to the interim or final order, shall not be recoverable by the applicant from the respondent. 16. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record as well as the certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti / Akhil