1 2026:CGHC:5551 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 579 of 2024 1 - Mamta Rajwade W/o Manbodh Rajwade Aged About 35 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Chopada Colony, Bishrampur, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Divya D/o Manbodh Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Mamta Rajwade, R/o Chopada Colony, Bishrampur, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Sanju S/o Manbodh Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Mamta Rajwade, R/o Chopada Colony, Bishrampur, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Manbodh S/o Tularam Aged About 46 Years Occupation Service (Secl Bhatgaon) R/o New Shakti Nagar, Jarhi Police Station Bhatgaon, Tahsil Jarhi, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.85/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 127(1)(2) CrPC filed by the respondent and the order dated 09.02.2015 passed in M.J.C. Case No.17/15, insofar as it relates to the grant of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month in favour of respondent No.1, Mamta Rajwade, is hereby quashed and set aside, while the order passed in the said proceedings in favour of respondents No.2 and 3 is affirmed and shall remain intact. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent were married in 2004 and have two children. Applicant No.1 had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance, pursuant to which the Family Court vide order dated 09-02-2015 directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.4,000/- per month each to applicants No.2 and 3. The respondent challenged the order before this Hon’ble Court in CRMP No.874/2015, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, confirming the said order. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Section 127(1) & (2) CrPC before the Family Court seeking modification of 3 the maintenance order, alleging concealment of material facts, and upon consideration of the evidence, the Family Court set aside the order dated 09-02-2015 in MJC No.17/2015, which has prompted the filing of the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and liable to be set aside. The court failed to properly appreciate the documents and materials on record and erroneously allowed the application filed by the non-applicant. It recorded a finding that Applicant No.1 is living an adulterous life without any cogent evidence, which is legally impermissible. He further submits that specifically, the court relied on photographs (Ex.P.5 to P.8) and alleged removal of a Godna (Ex.P.6) to infer adulterous conduct, but these were neither corroborated nor admitted by the applicant. Applicant No.1 examined herself and denied the allegations, and the non- applicant failed to provide any convincing proof of illicit relationships or adulterous behavior. He also submits that the order dated 09-02-2015 has attained finality and cannot be challenged under Section 127 Cr.P.C. while filing the present application. The applicants seek leave of this Hon’ble Court to raise any additional grounds during the hearing and request that any other grounds deemed fit be considered in their favor. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 127(1)(2) CrPC filed by the respondent and the order dated 09.02.2015 passed in M.J.C. Case No.17/15, insofar as it relates to the grant of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month in favour of respondent No.1, Mamta Rajwade, is hereby quashed and set aside, while the order passed in the said proceedings in favour of respondents No.2 and 3 is affirmed and shall remain intact observing the evidence and witness testimonies, it was found that she was living an immoral (Jarta) life with another man, Kartik, and voluntarily separated from her husband, Manbodh (respondent). Under Section 125(4) and (5) CrPC, a wife in such a situation is not entitled to maintenance. However, the court upheld the maintenance orders for the minor children, Divya and Sanju, since their welfare and upkeep remain the primary responsibility of the father. Hence, the court quashed Mamta’s maintenance while leaving the orders for the children intact. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and 5 is hereby dismissed. 8. 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