1 2026:CGHC:2871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 582 of 2023 Smt. Arpita Paul W/o Shri Vishal Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Palash Vihar, Mahavir Nagar, Behind Nirmal Fancy Stores, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Vishal Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh Aged About 40 Years Resident Of E-8, Prem Park Colony, Mahavir Nagar, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil Adn District Raipur, Chhattisarh. Present Address - C/o Vijay Singh, B-13, Geet Mohini, Phase 6, Ayodhya Nagar, Bhopal 462041. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. It transpires that initially the notice was issued to the respondent, but the same was not served, and thereafter, a fresh notice was again issued to the respondent, and as per the Office report dated 06.08.2025, the same was served, but the respondent could not put his appearance when the case is called out. Hence, this Court proceeds to hear the matter finally on merits. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 11/2021, whereby the application filed by the non- applicant for visiting rights has been allowed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the respondent Husband moved RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 an application under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 before the Family Court, Raipur. The Applicant is the wife of Non-Applicant. The marriage between Applicant and the Non-Applicant was solemnized on 27.04.2013 according to the Hindu rites and rituals in the residence of the applicant in presence of families of both the applicant and non-applicant and thereafter on 30.04.2013 according to the Christian customs at St. Paul's Church, Raipur. From the said wedlock, on 31.03.2015 a baby girl was born who was named as Anaya Singh. It was alleged by the non-applicant that sometimes after the marriage, the relationship between the parties became strain because of difference in opinion because of which there were arguments and quarrel between them. The non-applicant alleged that the applicant always used to suspect the non-applicant and used to torture him mentally and she tried that her in-laws should not stay with them and behaved accordingly. In January, 2020, stating that she was not well left her matrimonial house and went to her parental house and also took the child with her and on 08.05.2020, a case was registered by her under Section 498 IPC in the Mahila Thana, Raipur. 4. It was further alleged by the non-applicant husband that in order to torture her in-laws, the applicant is staying with her parents and is always threatened to be implicated in false case. Because of the cruelty meted out by the applicant, it had become impossible to further carry on with their matrimonial relationship and accordingly, the non- applicant moved the application for divorce. The applicant filed her reply admitting the contents of paragraph 1 of the divorce application and further pleaded that she was residing in Kolkata for the last six months. It was pleaded by her that after 1 years of her marriage, her 3 in-laws started treating the applicant with cruelty and also misbehaved with her parents and brother. The applicant pleaded that the main reason for leaving her matrimonial house was that her father-in-law had threatened to kill her and when she complained about the same to her husband i.e. the non-applicant, the non-applicant himself advised her to go to her parental house so that the dispute may be put at rest. She took the child aged about 4 months with her to her parental house in 2015. The applicant is Hindu by religion and the non-applicant is Christian by religion and it was agreed that they would be free to practice their own religion freely, however, the non-applicant and his parents used to express anger upon the applicant when she used to practice her own religion and accordingly used to torture her. The non- applicant was also having illicit relationship with one lady namely Mary Surin. When the same came to the knowledge of the applicant, she made a complaint to the State Women Commission but in the year 2016, the non-applicant begged pardon and brought the applicant and her daughter to his home. But even thereafter, the non-applicant continued with the illicit relationship with the lady named Mary Surin. 5. It was the contention of the applicant that in fact it is the non-applicant who do not wish to continue with the matrimonial relationship and wants to continue his illicit relationship and hence, he had moved the application for decree of divorce and accordingly, the applicant prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the non-applicant. During pendency of the aforesaid case, the non-applicant filed an application for granting visiting rights to meet her daughter on regular basis before the Family Court, Raipur. Hence, this revision. 4 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that during the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, an application was moved by the non-applicant regarding the visiting rights to meet his minor daughter aged about 10 years, and the same was allowed by the impugned order, and the applicant along with her daughter is living in Kolkata (West Bengal), and if the said order is allowed to be executed, then the applicant has to bring her daughter to Raipur or Bhopal, for letting her meet with the non-applicant. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that during the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, an application was moved by the non-applicant regarding the visiting rights to meet his minor daughter aged about 10 years, and the same was allowed by the impugned order, and though it is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant along with her daughter is living in Kolkata (West Bengal), and if the said order is allowed to be executed, then the applicant has to bring her daughter to Raipur or Bhopal, for letting her meet with the non-applicant, but the contention of the application does not found place in the impugned order, hence, no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements 5 of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Interim order, if any passed earlier, stands vacated. 11. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar