1 2025:CGHC:16613 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1391 of 2024 1 - Smt. Salini Sahu W/o Sukh Sagar Aged About 42 Years Caste - Sahu (Teli), R/o Mayapur Chandni Chowk, Near Panchdev Mandir Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... applicant versus 1 - Sukh Sagar Sahu S/o Mohan Ram Sahu Aged About 46 Years Caste - Sahu (Teli), Occupation Business, R/o Village Jhal, Police Station Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For Res. : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 08.04.2025 1. Challenge in the present revision is the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Ambikapur District, Sarguja in MJC No. 93/2024 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for review of the order dated 01.10.2024 and 26.10.2024 whereby the application for review of the order dated 01.10.2024 is rejected. 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent due to their matrimonial dispute, both of them were residing separately and the petitioner had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before learned family Court Ambikapur District- Surguja vide MJC No. 70 of 2012 in which an amount of Rs. 2,000-/- per month was granted as maintenance. On the application made under Section 127 of Cr.P. C., the said amount of monthly maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 2,300/- which was paying by the respondent. In the meantime, the respondent had filed another application before the learned family Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce which was registered as Civil Suit No. 45A/2017 before the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja and the application filed by the respondent was dismissed which has been challenged by him before the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Court bearing FAM No 214 of 2022. The said FA (MAT) No. 214 of 2022 was decided on 8.8.2024 and a decree of divorce was granted in favour of the respondent however, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 5 lacs as the permanent alimony has been granted in favour of the present petitioner. While granting the permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lacs, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has considered the amount of maintenance as also the properties of the parties. In paragraph 16 and 17 of its judgment which reproduced herein below:- “16. The parties have filed their affidavits submitting the source of income, details of movable and immovable properties held by them including the rights on ancestral property as per requirement of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. The respondent- Salini Sahu stated in her affidavit that (1) she is getting Rs. 2,300/- per month as maintenance by the appellant after the order of Family Court, Ambikapuur, (2) she has a savings account in State Bank of India at Ambikapur branch in which an amount of Rs. 3 9969.17 is deposited, (3) her mother is headmaster in primary school and her father is a retired clerk on them she is dependent and (4) her father possessed 1 acre and 10 dismal land at village Gidhwa, District- Bemetara. The appellant-Sukh Sagar stated in his affidavit that (1) he possessed a car bearing registration No. CG-25- F-1270 and was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month, (2) his father possessed a Hywa truck bearing registration No. CG-25-D-5407, (3) his father possessed 3 acres of agricultural land and her son Komal possessed 12.75 acres of agricultural land and (4) he possessed 4 acres and 5 dismal of agricultural land. 17. Now coming to grant of alimony to the respondent-wife, considering the properties movable and immovable possessed by the appellant/husband, in the facts of the case to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings and repetition of litigation time and again it is directed that appellant/husband shall pay Rs. 5,000,00/-(five Lac) a permanent alimony as one one-time settlement for all future claims including the claim for Stridhan by wife.” 3. In pursuance of the judgment dated 8.8.2024, passed in FA(MAT) No. 214 of 2022, the respondent had paid Rs. 5 lacks on 01.10.2024 to the petitioner and on that basis, the proceeding under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. initiated by the petitioner was disposed of by saying that the petitioner has entered into compromise with the respondent and in pursuance thereof she has received RS. 5 lacks as one time settlement and she does not want to press her case further. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has filed an application for review of the order dated 01.10.2024 on 25.10.2024 before the learned Family Court, Ambikapur by saying that there was no compromise between the petitioner and the respondent but Rs. 5 lacks has been received by her in pursuance of the judgment dated 8.8.2024 passed 4 by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in FA(MAT) No. 214 of 2022 but inadvertently in the order dated 01.10.2024 it has been mentioned that the parties have entered into compromise and in pursuance thereof the petitioner has received Rs. 5 lacs as one time settlement which is wrong and the order dated 01.10.20204 requires to be reviewed. 5. The said application of review has been rejected by the learned Family Court vide order dated 26.10.2024 by saying that the Family Court is invoking its jurisdiction as a criminal Court and the criminal Court cannot entertain the review petition further considering that Rs. 5 lacks received by the petitioner in pursuance of the judgment dated 8.8.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in FAM No. 214 of 2022 and it appears that the petitioner has filed this application with an ulterior motive. The order dated 26.10.2024 is under challenged with this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no compromise between the parties and in pursuance of the order dated 8.8.2024, Rs. 5 lacks have been paid to her and by the order dated 26.10.2024, her right to get maintenance was curtailed and therefore, the order dated 01.10.2024 requires to be reviews and set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order and would submit that in view of the paragraphs 16 & 17 of the judgment dated 8.8.2024 passed in FA(MAT) No. 214 of 2022, the entire claim of the petitioner has been settled as a one time measure and Rs. 5 lacks has been granted to her. Even if it is written as “the parties have entered into compromise” that itself does not make any difference because all the claims have been settled by the judgment dated 8.8.2024, therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 9. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no compromise between the parties and by mentioning that fact the right to receive maintenance of the petitioner is curtailed. I have gone through the paragraphs 17 and 18 of the judgment dated 08.10.2024 passed in FA(MAT) No. 214 of 2022, it clearly reveals that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court have considered all the movable and immovable property possessed by the parties and to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings and repetition of litigation time and again, further that the permanent alimony for one time settlement for all the future claim including the claim of Stridhan by wife has been granted Rs. 5 lacs in her favour which includes the rights of further maintenance. True it is that there is no compromise between the parties but under the fact that while awarding Rs. 5 lacs as one time settlement by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court her entire claim is considered including the future claim and to avoid the multiplicity and repetition of the litigation, therefore, even if the fact of compromise mentioned in the order dated 01.10.2024, in the opinion of this Court the same could not have much relevance in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order impugned and the revision filed by the petitioner is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge amita Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.05.03 11:03:41 +0530