1 2025:CGHC:46088-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 270 of 2025 1 - Mahendra Kachhwaha S/o Late Shri Ramsevak Kachhwaha Aged About 52 Years R/o Township No. 2-B/1 Ma Type Township Dallirajhra, District- Balod, (C.G.), Officer Address- Rajahra Minies Office P-A Building Civil Dalli, District- Balod, (C.G.), Permanent R/o Behind Ajeet Hotel, Inside Of Pratibha Medical, Medical Complex Telipara, Thana- City Kotwali Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh...............(Plaintiff) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Vijay Laxmi @ Rakhi Kachhwaha W/o Shri Mahendra Kachhwaha Aged About 43 Years Occupation- House Wife, R/o Village- Behind Ajeet Hotel, R.K. Boot House Road, Gali No.3, Telipara Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh...............(Defendant) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :- Mr. Sumesh Bajaj & Mr. Rishabh Bajaj, Advocates For Respondent :- Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DB- Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 10.09.2025 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. The present Review Petition is being filed seeking review and reconsideration of the final judgment and order dated 08.08.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in FA (MAT) No. 106 of 2024, titled Smt. Vijay Laxmi @ Rakhi Kachhwaha vs. Mahendra Kachhwaha. The said appeal arose from the order dated 07.03.2024, whereby the learned Family Court had granted a decree of divorce in favour of the applicant-husband herein. The respondent-wife had preferred an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which was registered as FA (MAT) No. 106 of 2024 and was finally decided by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.08.2025. As per Para 20 of the said judgment, this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to confirm the decree of divorce and has directed the applicant to pay a total amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) as full and final settlement, while acknowledging that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) has already been paid to the respondent. Thus, the applicant is now required to pay only the remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) in compliance with the final settlement. However, in Para 21 of the said judgment, this Hon’ble Court has observed that the applicant shall continue to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month as ordered under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. until further orders. The observation made in Para 21 appears to be an inadvertent error or contradiction, inasmuch as the Hon’ble Court has already granted a decree of divorce coupled with a full and final monetary 3 settlement, and therefore, the continuation of interim maintenance is not tenable in law. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a settled principle that once the parties have mutually agreed or the Court has ordered a full and final settlement amount, and a decree of divorce is passed, the right to claim further maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stands settled, unless specifically carved out. Furthermore, the figure of Rs. 10,000/- per month mentioned in Para 21 does not correctly reflect the maintenance amount determined under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was either different or under contest. In light of the above, the continuation of interim maintenance, despite a concluded settlement, is manifestly unjust and results in multiplicity of obligations, defeating the purpose of the final settlement and decree. It is further stated that the said observation, if allowed to stand, shall cause grave prejudice and financial hardship to the petitioner, and is liable to be reviewed/modified in the interest of justice. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the above prayer. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the original record, including the final order dated 08.08.2025, sought to be reviewed. 5. On perusal of the record and upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the direction in Para 21 of the 4 judgment dated 08.08.2025, requiring the applicant to pay interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., despite a concluded full and final settlement, is contradictory to the findings and directions contained in Para 20 of the same judgment. 6. It is well settled that once a full and final settlement is recorded and a decree of divorce is passed on that basis, the claim for further or continued maintenance does not survive, unless expressly preserved. No such reservation has been made in this case. 7. Accordingly, we find sufficient cause to review and modify the order dated 08.08.2025 passed in FA(MAT) No. 106/2024 to the limited extent of deletion of Para 21 of the said judgment. 8. Resultantly, the review petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Vishakha