Rajesh Kumar Mishra S/o Late Chandrika Prasad Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o Kera v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:25139 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 439 of 2017 Rajesh Kumar Mishra S/o Late Chandrika Prasad Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o Kera Road, Old Bus Stand, Janjgir, Tahsil-Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Madhuri Mishra W/o Rajesh Mishra Aged About 38 Years Daughter Of Jawahar Lal Pandey, Occupation- Computer Operator In Gas Agency, R/o Near Manjhli Talab, Main Road, Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Harsh Kumar Mishra S/o Rajesh Kumar Mishra Aged About 20 Years R/o Manjhli Talab, Main Road, Champa, Tahsil- Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.06.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 2 23.01.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 14/2009, whereby the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir- Champa, dismissed the application under Section 125(5) of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and afÏrmed the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by the learned JMFC, Janjgir, District – Janjgir- Champa, whereby the leraned JMFC Janjgir has allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 750/- per month to the respondent No.2/son. Hence, the applicant preferred this Criminal Revision. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125(5) of Cr.P.C., before the learned Family Court, Janjgir for cancellation of maintenance order dated 15.10.2001, on the ground of adultery. The applicant and respondent No. 1 are husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 11.06.1991 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and out of their wedlock, a baby child namely Vidhi Mishra was born, who died in motor accident on 06.09.1995 and at present the applicant and the respondent are living separately. The parents of applicant were died before the marriage of applicant and respondent. After marriage, the respondent came to the house of applicant for performing matrimonial obligations. The applicant in presence of respected 3 member of society, advised and requested the non-applicant to return back in the matrimonial house, but she refused to turn up in the matrimonial house. On 25.10.1995, the respondent sent a notice through her counsel threatening him for implicating in dowry case. The applicant sent reply to the notice and expressed his readiness to keep the respondent with him, but discarding the request of applicant, on 04.10.1996, the respondent No. 1 lodged false report against the applicant. The respondent has developed illicit physical relation and living in adultery and born a daughter namely Neetu Mishra while living in adultery. On 26.02.1996, the respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition on account of death of Vidhi Mishra before the Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, in which, she has mentioned that she is a deserted lady. On 16.04.1997, the respondent No. 1 delivered a male child (respondent No. 2) and announced that the said child is of the applicant, though there was no physical relation between the applicant and respondent after 04.10.1996. The applicant that vide order dated 15.10.2001, the learned JMFC, Janjgir has awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/- and 750/- respectively to the respondents. The applicant filed application under Section 125(5) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of maintenance order dated 15.10.2001. after serving notice, the non-applicant filed her written statement and denied the allegation. after hearing both the parties, vide impugned order and decree dated 23.01.2017, the learned Family Court dismissed the divorce petition. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the 4 learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that on 26.02.1996, the respondent No.1 had filed a claim petition on account of death of Vidhi Mishra before the Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, in which, she has mentioned that she is a deserted lady. Though on 16.04.1997, the respondent No. 2 was born, therefore it is clear that the respondent No. 2 is not the son of applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that on 16.10.1995, the respondent No. 1 has sent a legal notice through her counsel to the applicant, in which, she has threatened the applicant for lodging report against him. The applicant replied to the aforesaid notice on 25.10.1995, in which, he has asked the respondent No. 1 to return the matrimonial house. On 22.01.1996, an agreement was executed between the applicant and respondent No. 1, in which, it was mentioned that due to domestic dispute, the applicant and respondent No. 1 are living separately, therefore it is clear that before 22.01.1996, the applicant and respondent No. 1 were living separately. Therefore, the impugned order and decree is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, therefore it is liable to be set- aside/quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 23.01.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 14/2009, whereby the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, dismissed the application under Section 125(5) of the CrPC filed by the 5 applicant, and afÏrmed the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by the learned JMFC, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, whereby the leraned JMFC Janjgir has allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 750/- per month to the respondent No.2/son, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), 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, has dismissed the the application filed by the applicant under Section 125(5) of CrPC and afÏrmed the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by the learned JMFC, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, whereby the leraned JMFC Janjgir has allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for 6 maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 750/- per month to the respondent No.2/son, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. 9. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice