1 2025:CGHC:55842 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3431 of 2025 Dayanand Yadav S/o Dilharan Yadav Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village Jarwe (B), P.S. And Tahsil Balouda, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. Present Resident At Jai Bhart School Near Netaji Chowk, Janjgir, P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District Jangir- Champa Chhattisgarh., ... Petitioner versus 1. Smt. Roshani Yadav W/o Dayanand Yadav Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Village Jarwe (B), Caste Yadav , P.S. And Tahsil Balouda, Present Resident Of Village Kharod P.S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh., 2. Kumari Pragaya Yadav D/o Dayanand Yadav Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Graduation Mother Smt. Roshani Yadav, Wife Of Dayanand Yadav, Resident Of Village Jarwe (B), Caste Yadav , P.S. And Tahsil Balouda, Present Resident Of Village Kharod P.S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh., ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Sangeeta Kashyap, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.11.2025 1. Heard Ms. Sangeeta Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.18 18:09:18 +0530 2 Revision No. 1285/2019, arising out of the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 163/2018 whereby this Court has allowed this criminal revision filed by the respondents. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner married respondent No.1 on 09.05.2016 according to Hindu customs. After marriage, respondent No.1 lived with the petitioner at her matrimonial home, and respondent No. 2 was born from the wedlock. Respondent No. 1 alleged that shortly after the marriage, the petitioner and his family members began harassing and torturing her for dowry, subjected her to physical assault, and used filthy language. Due to this cruelty and repeated demands for dowry, she left the matrimonial home and began residing with respondent No. 2 at her parental house. Respondent No. 1 has no independent source of income. The petitioner is a government employee earning approximately Rs. 8,000/- per month. Therefore, the respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. After notice, the petitioner filed a reply denying all allegations and contending that he is not liable to pay maintenance. The Family Court, by order dated 30.07.2019, dismissed the respondents’ maintenance application. Aggrieved, the respondents filed Criminal Revision No. 1285/2019. This Hon’ble Court, by order dated 30.06.2025, allowed the revision. The impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. Hence, this revision is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that the impugned order passed by this Court is illegal, erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence and documents placed on record by the petitioner. Respondent No.1/wife has executed an affidavit and contracted a second 3 marriage with one Rajeshwar Yadav, with whom she and respondent No. 2/daughter are presently residing peacefully. Hence, the respondents are not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed an application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act for custody of respondent No. 2. Respondent No.1 in her written therein, admitted that she is well-educated, prepares house maps, and runs a printing-press business, earning approximately Rs.50,000/- per month. Thus, she is financially capable of maintaining herself and the child. Respondent No. 1 had filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir, vide order dated 22.02.2025. This Hon’ble Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner never ill-treated the respondent No.1, instead, he made sincere efforts to maintain the matrimonial relationship, but respondent No. 1 wilfully refused to reside with him. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside. Therefore, it is prayed that the order dated 30.06.2025 may be recalled. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking recall of the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1285/2019. After hearing counsel for both the parties, this Court passed the order on merits on 30.06.2025 in Criminal Revision No.1285/2019. It is noted that Respondent No. 1, Smt. Roshni Yadav, the petitioner’s wife, has remarried one Rajeshwar Yadav, and Petitioner No. 2, the daughter of the petitioner– Dayanand Yadav, are residing peacefully with the said Rajeshwar Yadav. 4 7. It has further been contended that respondent No. 1/wife is ready to give custody of her daughter to the petitioner, but this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court earlier. However, as the order dated 30.06.2025 was passed by this Court on merits after hearing counsel for the parties, the present petition seeking its recall is devoid of merit. The application is also barred under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. and is accordingly dismissed. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti