1 2025:CGHC:55479 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 950 of 2025 1 - Poonam Janghel W/o Shri Kishan Janghel Aged About 30 Years Through - Father - Shri Krishna Kumar Verma R/o Village Akoli, Post Barharpur, Police Station - Dhamdha, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Kishan Janghel S/o Shri Ram Avtar Janghel Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post - Parpodi, P.S. - Parpodi, Tehsil - Saja, District - Bemetara (C.G.) 491331 Office Address - Govt. Higher Secondary School, Village - Korchatola, Tehsil - Ambagarh Chowki, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 491668 ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Vaishali Jeswani, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 13.11.2025 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.), whereby the application filed by the petitioner calling one Santosh Verma, President of the Community of the parties as witness, was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court seeking maintenance from the respondent. The allegation in the application is that she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and was therefore compelled to live separately. A criminal case under Section 498-A of the IPC was also registered against the respondent in which Mr. Santosh Verma, President of the Community, was examined as a witness. In his statement he deposed that the HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.11.20 14:34:23 +0530 2 petitioner refused to live with the respondent. He further stated that certain social meetings between the parties were convened by the community, and the minutes thereof were recorded in a register maintained by them. The petitioner seeks to call the said witness in order to establish that the reasons for her separate residence stand corroborated by the minutes of those social meetings. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the statement of Mr. Santosh Verma recorded in the criminal case has already been exhibited by the respondent, and since the respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC, it cannot be said that the petitioner was subjected to cruelty compelling her to reside separately. The said witness’s statement recorded before the criminal Court also supports the respondent. It is argued that the application was filed at a belated stage, when the matter was fixed for final hearing, only to delay the proceedings. The respondent is already paying interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is further submitted that permitting the petitioner to examine this witness at this stage would amount to filling up the lacuna in her case, after the defence of the respondent has already been disclosed. Thus, the Family Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in rejecting the application, and no interference is called for. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The dispute between the parties pertains to the petitioner’s claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. A perusal of the application appended with the writ petition indicates that the petitioner has alleged cruelty, pressure for divorce, and other allegations, on account of which she was compelled to reside separately. The defence of the respondent is that no cruelty was committed and that he has already been acquitted in the criminal 3 case, and the witness Mr. Santosh Verma whom the petitioner seeks to call had deposed in his favour before the criminal Court. Though the application has indeed been filed at a belated stage, it appears from the material on record that certain social meetings were convened by the community between the parties, and the minutes thereof were recorded in writing by the community president. The question whether the petitioner is residing separately without sufficient cause or whether she was forced to do so may be clarified by examining this witness. Although the Family Court has exercised its discretion in refusing to summon the witness Mr. Santosh Verma, considering that the dispute is between spouses and in the interest of justice, the petitioner ought to have been afforded one opportunity to examine the said witness. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the relief sought by the petitioner deserves to be granted. At the same time, the respondent should not suffer prejudice. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, subject to the petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent before the trial Court. On the next date of hearing, the learned trial Court shall fix a date for recording the evidence of witness Mr. Santosh Verma. The petitioner shall ensure the presence of the witness along with all necessary documents, if any, and examine him on the date so fixed. It is further observed that the learned Family Court shall not be obliged to grant any further adjournment for examination of this witness. Since the matter has already reached the stage of final hearing, it is expected that after recording the evidence of the said witness, the Family Court will decide the case on its own merits expeditiously. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari