1 2025:CGHC:34651 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 114 of 2023 Mayadevi W/o Kishor Kumar Aged About 35 Years R/o Qtr. No. 15 C, Street No.29, Sector-05 Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Kishor Kumar S/o Vishnu Singh Verma R/o Village Sursabandha, Police Station Rajim, Tehsil Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.320/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant's marriage to the respondent was solemnized on 05.05.2001, according to Hindu rites. Initially, they lived together happily, but their marital life became troubled PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.23 11:31:01 +0530 2 when the respondent received letters questioning the applicant's character, leading to doubts about her fidelity. Similar letters were received by the applicant's parents. Despite a compromise agreement on 06.05.2002, after it was revealed that the letters were false, the couple's relationship deteriorated again due to more such letters. The applicant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights, which was allowed by the Family Court. The applicant then filed a petition for maintenance, claiming she had no income and her retired father couldn't support her. She sought Rs. 20,000 per month, citing the respondent's substantial income from 12 acres of land, a tractor, car, and agricultural instruments. The respondent alleged that no physical relationship was established due to the applicant's claimed stomach pain and accused her of contracting a marriage with a Muslim man, Syed Zuber, during the ceremony. The trial Court rejected the applicant's maintenance claim on 01.09.2022, which is now being challenged. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Court has not considered that the marital status between the parties has not been respondent has entered into matrimonial tie with one "Hiraundi Devi" from whom he eliminated and has two children and it is settled law that during the existence of first marriage no subsequent marriage or marriages can be performed by a male Hindu and no one be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and therefore, by not considering this aspect of the matter the learned Trial Court arrived at a wrong conclusion and dismissed the petition of the applicant and therefore, the order impugned deserve to be quashed. The learned Trial Court has not given its thoughtful consideration that the allegation of marriage with a Muslim person has been imposed but the said allegation has not been 3 substantiated through cogent evidence and it is settled law that suspicion how ever strong may not take place of proof. Though this Court has dismissed the Petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act vide Judgment dated 26.07.2022 in FAM No. 93/2016 but with utmost regard to the said Judgment it is respectfully submitted that claim for maintenance has no nexus with the said Judgment and presently SLP with Diary No. 31713/2022 has been preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the applicant Smt. Maya Devi has stated in her evidence that on receiving an anonymous letter, on the basis of suspicion, the respondent stopped living with her and left her at her parent's house, thus the respondent has stated that he has abandoned her without any reason, but the evidence and documents presented by the respondent prove that the applicant, in spite of being the married wife of the respondent, is living an adulterous life with another man. In such a situation, the applicant is not entitled to receive any kind of maintenance from the respondent. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 4 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti