1 2025:CGHC:32934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 216 of 2022 Smt. Ragini Rana W/o Leeladhar Rana, Aged About 30 Years R/o With Father Brijlal Rana, Village Bindravan, Ps Komakhan, Tehsil Baghbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Leeladhar Rana S/o Kanahhiya Lal Rana, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Pipalkhunta,post Mithapali, Ps Paikmal and Tehsil Paikmal, District Bargarh (Orrisa) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned counsel for the non- applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and impugned order dated 02.12.2021, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G) passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 35/2021, in the case of "Leeladhar Rana V/s. Smt. Ragini Rana" may kindly be set-aside in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant (wife) and non-applicant (husband) are legally wedded spouses and have two sons, Dulesh and Rahul. The applicant had earlier filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance for herself and her minor son Rahul, which was allowed by the Family Court, Mahasamund on 27.04.2015 in M.Cr.C. No. 45/2014, directing the non-applicant to pay ₹1,000 each per month to the applicant and Rahul. Subsequently, the applicant filed an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery of arrears, registered as M.Cr.C. No. 173/2016. In response, the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125(5) Cr.P.C., alleging that the applicant was living in adultery with one Sunil Shrivastava since 02.08.2016 and that their son Rahul had been living with him since 2015. In support, he filed his own deposition and that of the applicant’s brother Uttam Rana. The applicant denied the allegations, asserting that the issue of adultery had already been decided in the earlier proceedings, and claimed the non-applicant took the child away through a compromise and later ousted her after assault. After considering the 3 evidence, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, allowed the application under Section 125(5) Cr.P.C. and held that the applicant was living in adultery from 02.08.2016 and thus not entitled to maintenance from that date, and further found that since the son Rahul resides with the non-applicant, no maintenance is payable to the applicant for him. The said order dated 02.12.2021 is under challenge in this revision petition as being illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, having been passed in a mechanical manner without proper appreciation of evidence and in violation of principles of natural justice. The Court erred in drawing a presumption of adultery solely on the basis of the affidavit and testimony of the applicant’s brother, without any concrete or corroborative proof. The allegation of adultery had already been raised and remained unproven in earlier proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., yet the Court failed to consider this. The finding is based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations, lacking the clear and continuous proof required under law, as laid down in Rachita Rout v. Basanta Kumar Rout, 1986 SCC OnLine Ori 123. No notice or opportunity was given to the alleged adulterer, further violating natural justice. The conclusion appears to have been reached with a predetermined mindset, ignoring the pending recovery application from 2016 and failing to consider the serious legal consequences of such a finding. In absence of compelling 4 circumstantial evidence, the order is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in allowing the application under Section 125(5) Cr.P.C. after thoroughly evaluating the evidence presented by both parties. The Court considered the non-applicant’s deposition and supporting testimony of the applicant’s own brother, which substantiated the allegation that the applicant had been living in adultery with one Sunil Shrivastava since 02.08.2016. As per settled legal principles, living in adultery is a valid ground to disqualify a wife from receiving maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. The Court also correctly found that since the minor son Rahul had been residing with the non-applicant since 2015, the applicant was not entitled to claim maintenance on his behalf. The findings were based on the available evidence and in accordance with law, and hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 5 8. Considering the submission 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan