1 2025:CGHC:40430 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 210 of 2024 Gaurav Saraswat S/o Shri Vijay Saraswat Aged About 42 Years R/o Flat No.101, C/42, Shri Nidhi Apartments, Tarun Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan, 302004. ... Applicant(s) versus Richa Ojha D/o Shri Ramchandra Ojha Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. C/316, Priyadarshani Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhil Kumar Samantray, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 25.11.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.799/2017, whereby, the learned Family Court rejected the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision according to the applicant are that the applicant and the respondent were married on 08.12.2010 at Jaipur, Rajasthan, in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, and no child was born from their wedlock. From the very beginning, the respondent revealed her intention not to reside or cohabit with the applicant without any justifiable reason. In an effort to sustain the marriage, the applicant made every possible attempt to reconcile and strengthen the marital bond. However, on 12.07.2011, the respondent went to her parental home for festivities and, to the applicant’s utter shock, refused to return to the matrimonial home in Jaipur despite repeated requests, efforts, and interventions by the applicant, his family, and relatives. Her continued refusal without sufficient cause amounted to desertion and cruelty. Consequently, the applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Jaipur. The respondent chose not to appear, resulting in an ex- parte order dated 06.01.2014 directing her to resume cohabitation and marital duties. Despite this, she failed to comply and, instead, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which was allowed ex-parte on 24.05.2013, directing the applicant to pay Rs.12,000/- per month. As a last resort, the applicant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Jaipur, which was allowed ex-parte on 03.09.2015, granting a decree of divorce without any order for 3 alimony or lump-sum settlement. The respondent’s application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set-aside the divorce decree was dismissed, and her appeal before the Rajasthan High Court was also dismissed on 15.11.2021, thereby attaining finality. Meanwhile, the applicant filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking alteration of the maintenance amount, highlighting that the maintenance awarded was far beyond his total annual income. Despite limited and irregular earnings, being the sole breadwinner and caretaker of his aged parents including a bedridden father suffering from cancer the applicant struggled to comply with the maintenance order, often relying on financial help from relatives and friends. The post-COVID-19 financial crisis further depleted the family’s meagre savings. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and consider the relevant facts in their entirety while deciding the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of maintenance, it erred in not taking into account the material change in circumstances. The applicant is in severe financial distress, with no sufficient means or savings to even meet the basic needs of his family, whereas the respondent, being more qualified and financially stable, runs an event management business in Raipur and earns considerably more than the applicant, making her fully capable of maintaining herself. The applicant had made every effort, both informal and legal, to sustain the marriage, including obtaining a decree for 4 restitution of conjugal rights, thereby showing his bona fides and that he neither neglected nor refused to maintain the respondent. Despite this, the respondent willfully deserted the applicant without sufficient cause, disobeyed the restitution decree, and later the marriage was dissolved by a divorce decree, which has attained finality without any provision for maintenance or alimony in her favour. 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 impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rejected the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent observing that under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alteration of maintenance can be ordered only when a genuine change in the circumstances of the applicant or the respondent is proved. In the present case, the earlier order passed against the applicant was ex parte, wherein the applicant, despite appearing, neither produced any evidence nor presented any defence. Therefore, it has not been established that there has been any change in the applicant’s income. 5 Consequently, the application for alteration of maintenance is dismissed. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil