Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14494 (CHH)

SMT. SUNITA GUPTA v. ASHISH GUPTA

CRMP/108/2026 · 2026-01-12

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:1948 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 108 of 2026 Smt. Sunita Gupta W/o Ashish Gupta Aged About 47 Years R/o Hatri Bazar, Bhatapara, Tahsil, Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus Ashish Gupta S/o Ramesh Gupta, Aged About 35 Years R/o Chhota Talab, Gundipura, Chhindwada, Police Station Kotwali, Chhindwada Tahsil Chhindwada, District- Chhindwada (M.P.) ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking limited modification/correction of a factual error recorded in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by this Court in CRR No. 244 of 2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal revision KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2025. He further submits that the petitioner is not seeking re- hearing of the matter on merits nor re-appreciation of evidence, but has confined the present petition only to the correction of a factual mistake apparent on the face of the record. It is submitted that in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the impugned order, this Court observed that “the mediation has failed as the parties are not ready to reside with each other.” According to the petitioner, the said observation is factually incorrect. 4. From the record, it appears that the respondent–husband had stated that he was willing to reside with the petitioner, whereas the petitioner contradicted the said submission and stated that she was always ready and willing to reside with the husband and that it was the husband who was not taking her to his home. The matter was thereafter referred to mediation centre. It is further evident from the mediation proceedings dated 27.11.2025 that the petitioner–wife expressed her willingness to go and reside with the respondent–husband, however, the respondent declined to take her to his home, as a result of which the mediation failed and the matter was returned to the Court. 5. On the date of final hearing i.e. 04.12.2025 also, the counsel for the respondent conveyed the unwillingness of the husband to take the petitioner with him, whereas the counsel for the petitioner reiterated that she was and continues to be willing to reside with her husband. 6. In view of the above factual position emerging from the record, this Court finds that the observation made in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the impugned order, to the effect that “the parties are not ready to reside with each other”, is factually inaccurate and appears to have crept in 3 inadvertently. 7. Since the said factual error is apparent on the face of the record and is likely to adversely affect the rights of the petitioner in the pending and subsequent proceedings, including the matrimonial case pending before the Family Court, Chhindwara, it deserves to be corrected in exercise of powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed to the limited extent that in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the order dated 04.12.2025 passed in CRR No. 244 of 2022, the observation “the parties are not ready to reside with each other” shall stand modified and shall be read as: “The petitioner–wife has expressed her willingness to reside with the respondent–husband; however, the respondent–husband has shown unwillingness to take the petitioner to his home, and therefore the mediation has failed.” 9. Except for the above limited modification, the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by this Court stands modified to the above extent. 10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. stands disposed of. 11. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal