1 2025:CGHC:33873 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 863 of 2021 Sharmila Goswami W/o Awdhesh Goswami, Aged About 25 Years R/o Salka, Police Station And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Awdhesh Goswami S/o Chitrakot Goswami, Aged About 30 Years R/o Jhirmiti, Post Udaypur, Police Station And Tahsil Udaypur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.18 12:14:46 +0530 2 further be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set-aside the order dated 17.08.2021 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Court of learned Family Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), in M.J.C. Case No. 87/2020, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance. The learned Family Court dismissed the said claim application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. As per the averments in the claim application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, it was pleaded that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2016 as per the caste customs prevailing between the parties. It was further pleaded that the respondent had demanded dowry from the father of the applicant, but due to the financial condition of the applicant’s family, the demand could not be fulfilled. Thereafter, the respondent used filthy language against the sisters of the applicant and ill- treated the applicant, as a result of which the applicant fell ill. It was further mentioned that due to the ill-treatment meted out by the respondent, the family members of the applicant brought her back to their house, after which the respondent went there and brought her back. 4. It was further pleaded that due to the sudden demise of the father of the respondent, the respondent was appointed as a Forest Guard 3 on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, with the connivance of the panch and sarpanch, the respondent allegedly forged a divorce and obtained the signatures of the applicant and her father, and soon thereafter, the applicant was ousted from the house. The respondent is employed in the Forest Department as a government employee and earns a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month. 5. The respondent filed a reply denying the averments made in the maintenance application. It was further pleaded that the applicant used to talk to another person, and the same was recorded on the respondent’s mobile phone. On 03.02.2020, a meeting was held in the village, attended by the panch, the father and mother of the applicant, along with the applicant, wherein the applicant allegedly admitted to her relationship, and a panchnama was prepared in this regard. It was further pleaded that the applicant is living an adulterous life and, therefore, is not entitled to any maintenance, and the claim application preferred by the applicant deserves to be dismissed in toto. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Family Court framed three issues. After scrutinizing the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court dismissed the claim application filed by the applicant. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law and is therefore liable to be set aside. He submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law as well as on the facts available 4 on record. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the applicant to prove her case. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that Exhibit D-1, which was alleged to have been written by Chitrangada Puri and contained the signatures of the applicant and her father and mother, wherein it was held that the applicant admitted her relationship with another person, is not trustworthy. No independent witness was examined by the respondent in this regard. Furthermore, Chitrangada Puri Goswami, who was examined as A.W.-2 before the learned Family Court, admitted that he is the real maternal uncle of the respondent, and Exhibit D-1 does not mention the name of the person who wrote it. He also submits that although it is claimed that a village meeting was held and several persons signed Exhibit D-1, apart from the relatives of the respondent, none of the witnesses who allegedly signed Exhibit D-1 have been examined by the respondent. In contrast, the applicant has denied the contents of Exhibit D-1 and has specifically stated that the meeting was held in respect of divorce. Therefore, the contents of Exhibit D-1 cannot be relied upon for determining the claim application. He submits that learned Family Court erred in dismissing the claim application of the applicant on the ground that the applicant was living an adulterous life, while no evidence was adduced by the respondent in this regard. The respondent deposed about certain recordings in his mobile phone, but the said recordings were not produced, and no evidence was adduced to 5 substantiate this claim. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, observing that the applicant was living an adulterous life with another person. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper. 11. Considering the submission 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek