1 2025:CGHC:34653 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 756 of 2022 Mohammad Nasruddin @ Munna S/o Bashiruddin Aged About 46 Years R/o Loco Colony, Near Masjid, P.S. And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Khairun Nisha W/o Nasruddin Aged About 38 Years D/o Mohammad Nanhe Khan R/o Pondi, Tahsil Chirmiri, District Korea (C.G.) At Present R/o Mauharpara, Manendragarh, P.S. And Tahsil Manendragarh, District – Korea (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Abhishek Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 159/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125(4)(5) of the CrPC filed by the applicant for cancellation of maintenance. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case no. 29/2017 and vide order dated 04.12.2017 the learned Family Court has allowed maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of respondent and thereafter the respondent filed an application for enhancement of maintenance amount and vide order dated 14.09.2019 the maintenance amount was enhanced upto Rs. 3500/- per month. the applicant filed an application under Section 125 (4)(5) of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Manendragarh, District-Korea for cancellation of maintenance order passed in favour of respondent. The applicant has submitted that due to affect of pandemic Covid-19, the applicant has become jobless and therefore the applicant is not able to pay the maintenance, as the applicant is hardly running his livelihood by grazing goat. It was further specifically contended by the applicant that before marriage and after marriage, the respondent was having physical relationship with other person and she was living in adultery. The applicant has caught hold the respondent with other person several time and she used to talk with other person in objectionable words and the applicant is having mobile recording regarding the discussion of respondent with other person and the same may be produced before the court. It was further submitted by the applicant that the applicant has made his best efforts to take back the respondent, but she has not returned in the house of applicant and she is living separately without any reasonable cause. Due to said action of respondent, the applicant has given divorce to the respondent according to Muslim Law on 02.04.2017 in presence of witnesses and since then there is no matrimonial or physical relationship between the applicant and respondent, therefore the respondent is not entitled for maintenance and the maintenance order 3 be cancelled. 4. 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 rejected the application under Section 125(4)(5) of the CrPC filed by the applicant for cancellation of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that before the marriage the respondent was having physical relationship with other person and after marriage also she contintued physical relationship with other perosn, thus, she is not entiled to get maintenance as she was living adultery. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 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 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 159/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125(4)(5) of the CrPC filed by the applicant for cancellation of maintenance, 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 impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, 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