1 2025:CGHC:34943 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 911 of 2021 Uttam Kunjam S/o Shri Gulab Kunjam Aged About 27 Years R/o Godripara Chirmiri, Police Station Chirmiri, Tehsil Chirmiri, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Priyanka Tiwari W/o Arun Tiwari Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Gelhapani, Police Station And Tehsil Chirmiri, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.86/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court dismissed the application under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent is already married, and her husband's name is Arun Tiwari, resident of Village Amin, Police Station Tala, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh, and currently residing at Ward No. 10, Gelhapani, Chirmiri, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. The respondent and Arun have a daughter, Kumari Preeti Tiwari, born out of their wedlock. The respondent, in collusion with Arun, had filed a false case, concealing facts and with the intention of extorting money. However, the applicant has no relationship with the respondent, nor has she lived with him as his wife. The applicant is employed as a teacher at Government Primary School, Gelhapani, Chirmiri. Due to severe illness, he was absent from work from March 2017 to July 2018 and had gone to his native village. During this period, he did not receive any court notices and was unaware of the proceedings. Consequently, an ex parte order was passed by the court on January 23, 2019. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court committed a gross error by failing to consider the crucial fact that the respondent is the legally married wife of Arun Tiwari, and their marriage is still subsisting. Notably, the divorce petition filed by the respondent against her husband Arun was dismissed on April 27, 2017 (Annexure P/5), based on their joint statement on oath, wherein they settled their disputes amicably and expressed their desire to continue their matrimonial life. Regrettably, these material facts were deliberately concealed by the respondent in 3 the maintenance case, thereby perpetrating a fraud upon the Court. Despite being apprised of this significant fact by the petitioner, the learned trial Court inexplicably overlooked it, warranting interference by this Court. He further submits that the divorce petition (Annexure P/3), the respondent described herself as the wife of Arun Tiwari in her statement on oath dated April 27, 2017, and expressed her desire to live with him, acknowledging misunderstandings. Contrastingly, in her maintenance application, she claimed to have married the petitioner on June 25, 2016, at Dongargarh. Furthermore, in her reply to the application under Section 126(2) CrPC, she stated that she married the petitioner after dissolving her marriage with Arun Tiwari. These glaring inconsistencies demonstrate that the respondent's petition was founded on false and untrue facts, and she was never the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The Court below committed a gross error by overlooking these significant facts, which are duly available on record, thereby warranting interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court dismissed the application under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that in cross-examination (Annexure PW-2, paragraphs 7 and 9), Uttam Kunjam, the applicant, denied receiving the notice through postal means on 4 November 12, 2018, at Gelhapani School, and claimed that he had no knowledge about his presence at the school on that date. However, the Headmaster, Puran Lal, admitted in paragraph 9 that the applicant was present at Gelhapani School on November 12, 2018, and the attendance register (Page 115, Part-I, Section A) bears the applicant's signature and the date November 12, 2018. Further, in paragraph 10, Puran Lal stated that the applicant was present on all working days in November 2018 and had also attended election training during the same month. From the aforementioned oral and documentary evidence, it has been proved that on November 12, 2018, the applicant was present at work and was served with a registered notice at the address of Government Primary School Gelhapani North Chirmiri, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. As a teacher, the applicant had knowledge of various criminal cases, including Case No. 24/17, as of November 12, 2018, but he chose not to participate in the proceedings. Thus, the reasons cited under Section 126(2) of the CrPC are not sufficient and bona fide. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil