Satish Khatri S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Khatri Aged About 38 Years R/o Flat No v. Sonam Khatri Alias Sonam Ahuja W/o Satish Khatri Aged About 37 Years R/o Street
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28196 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 747 of 2025 Satish Khatri S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Khatri Aged About 38 Years R/o Flat No. K-202, Raheja Residency, Avanti Vihar, P.S. Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001 ... Applicant versus Sonam Khatri Alias Sonam Ahuja W/o Satish Khatri Aged About 37 Years R/o Street No. 04, Ravigram, Telibandha, P.S. Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001 ---- Respondent For Applicant :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Shishir Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice RAJSHEKHAR SONI 26.06.2025 Order on Board Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 1. Heard Mr. Shishir Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. MCC/92/2025, whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur, partly dismissed the objection of the applicant on the maintainability of second application of the non-applicant on the ground of res-judicata and directed re-trial of the case. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and the 2 non-applicant was solemnized on 01.04.2022 in accordance with sikh rituals and ceremonies at Pandri Gurudwara, Govind Nagar Raipur (C.G.). This was the second marriage of both the applicant and the non- applicant. The first marriage of the applicant was with Miss Pinky Rupani dated 29.06.2011 which was dissolved after mutual consent divorce decree dated 13.08.2021 obtained from the Family Court at Raipur (C.G.). The first marriage of the non-applicant was with Deepak Sangtani who is a resident of Gondia Maharashtara. The marriage was solemnized on 23.11.2017 with hindu rituals and ceremonies at Gondia Maharashtara. The non-applicant got separated from Deepak Sangtani on 04.07.2021 after executing a notarized separation agreement. Clause 09 of the said agreement clearly stipulated that both non-applicant and Deepak Sangtani will seek mutual consent divorce decree by filing mutual consent divorce application in the Family Court at Gondia, Maharashtara. However, no such divorce decree was obtained by the non-applicant from Deepak Sangtani from the Family Court. Without seeking such divorce non-applicant solemnized the marriage with the applicant on 01.04.2022. At the time of marriage non-applicant represented that she is a divorcee without disclosing that she has got separated from Deepak Sangtani on the basis of notarized separation agreement. This non-applicant claims to be her customary divorce document evidencing dissolution of her marriage from Deepak Sangtani. Differences arouse between the applicant and the non-applicant after which non-applicant deserted the matrimonial home of the applicant just after one and half months of marriage that is on date 16.05.2022 and she along with her brother started demanding Rs. 80,00,000/- in the name of alimony from the applicant. Thereafter applicant obtained information from the sindhi community that non-applicant has not obtained divorce 3 from her first hand. He filed an application dated 28.06.2022 under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for declaration of his marriage with non-applicant as null and void which case was registered as HMA/592/2022 before the Family Court at Raipur (C.G.). Subsequently on date 01.08.2022 non-applicant filed maintenance application before the Family Court at Raipur (C.G.) under Section 125 CrPC against the applicant. The case was registered as MCC/650/2022. Application of the non-applicant in MCC/650/2022 was dismissed on merits by judgment dated 27.03.2023 on the ground that non-applicant in her cross-examination has admitted that she solemnized the marriage with the applicant without seeking divorce from her first husband Deepak Sangatani. Against this judgment the non-applicant did not file any revision within the time limit prescribed by the law for filing the revision and remained silent for the entire 2023 and first half of 2024. The application of the applicant under Section 12 HMA registered as HMA/592/2022 was dismissed by judgment dated 27.04.2024. The applicant within 30 days filed an appeal FA(MAT)/160/2024 before the this Court which is pending for consideration. The non-applicant has been served notice of the appeal and she has also filed her appearance through her advocates. After rejection of applicant's application in HMA/592/2022 the non-applicant sought mutual consent divorce decree from her first husband Deepak Sangtani on date 09.08.2024 from the Family Court at Gondia Maharashtara. Thereafter on 10.01.2025 non- applicant filed second maintenance application under Section 144 of the BNSS registered as MCC/92/2025 before the Family Court at Raipur (C.G.) claiming her divorce dated 09.08.2024 from Deepak Sangatani and rejection of applicant's application in HMA/592/2022 as changed circumstance entitling her right to claim maintenance from the applicant. 4 Thereafter the applicant on date 05.04.2025 filed an objection before the Family Court at Raipur (C.G.) on the maintainability of the second 144 application in MCC/92/2025 against him on the ground of res-judicata claiming that issues which non-applicant alleges to be changed circumstances have already been proved in previous judgment dated 27.03.2023 in MCC/650/2022, the Family Court at Raipur (C.G.) by impugned order dated 02.06.2025 rejected the objection of the applicant by holding that question of res-judicata in the present case is mixed question of law and fact which will be decided on the basis of evidence in trial. It is also observed that factum of customary divorce need to be examined on the basis of evidence on trial. Both facts have already been proved in judgment dated 27.03.2023 in MCC/650/2022 which order is still in existence and its cancellation has not been sought by the non- applicant in accordance with law before filing second maintenance application against the applicant. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court completely overlooked the fact that on date 01.04.2022 when marriage between applicant and non-applicant was solemnized, the non-applicant did not obtained divorce from Court, from Deepak Sangatni, which brings the marriage between the applicant and non- applicant into category of void marriage according to Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is further submitted that the iearned Family Court also overlooked the fact that the non-applicant in MCC/650/2022 in paragraph number 18 of her cross examination has admitted that she solemnized the marriage with the applicant without seeking divorce from Court from Deepak Sangatani and the fact stands proved in this case. Also this fact has now been admitted by the non- applicant in paragraph number 25, 26 and 27 of her second maintenance 5 application. Therefore there is nothing left to be proved by evidence by conducting the second trial in MCC/92/2025. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. 6. 7. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the respondents, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar