Smt. Suman Dewangan vs Resham Lal Dewangan on 9 May, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Suman Dewangan vs Resham Lal Dewangan on 9 May, 2025

                                 1




                                                  2025:CGHC:21793

                                                           AFR


        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                     CRR No. 1322 of 2024
                Judgment Reserved on 24.03.2025
                 Judgment Delivered on 09.05.2025

 Resham Lal Dewangan S/o Shri Ramdheen Dewangan Aged About 34
  Years R/o Ward No. 31, Urla Road Birgaon, Raipur, Tehsil And District
  Raipur, C.G.
                                                   --- Applicant(s)

                              versus

 Smt. Suman Dewangan D/o Late Shri Shobhram Dewangan, W/o Shri
  Resham Lal Dewangan Aged About 29 Years R/o Dikesh (Ajay)
  Dewangan, Near Raju Kirana Stores, Ramayan Nagar Chowk,
  Kushalpur, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, C.G.
                                                      --- Respondent(s)

CRR No. 58 of 2025

 Smt. Suman Dewangan W/o Resham Lal Dewangan D/o Late
Shobharam Dewangan Aged About 29 Years (W/o Wrongly Mentioned
In Impugend Order ) R/o Dikesh (Ajay) Dewangan Near Raju Grocery
Shop Ramayan Nagar Chowk Kushalpur Raipur Tehsil And District –
Raipur (C.G.) (Applicant )

—Applicant(s)

Versus

 Resham Lal Dewangan S/o Ramadhin Dewangan Aged About 34
Years R/o Near Sanjay Foot Wear Ward No. 31, Urla Road Birgaon
Raipur Tehsil And District – Raipur (C.G.) (Non – Applicant/
Respondent)

— Respondent(s)
2

For Resham Lal Dewangan/husband : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate
For Smt. Suman Dewangan/wife : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
CAV Order

1. Since subject matter in the both the revision petitions being common,

this Court proceeds to decide the matter by this common order.

2. This both revision petitions are preferred against the order dated

06.11.2024 passed in Mscl. Criminal case No. 637/2022 by the learned

Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) whereby an

application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant- Smt.

Suman Dewangan has been partly allowed and the Court had directed

the applicant-Resham Lal Dewangan to pay an amount of Rs. 4000/-

per month as maintenance to the applicant Smt. Suman Dewangan.

3. Brief facts of the present case is that the Smt. Suman Dewangan

(hereinafter referred as “applicant/wife”) and Resham Lal Dewanan

(hereinafer referred as “applicant/husband”) are husband & wife and

solemnized their marriage on 11.07.2019 as per Hindu rites and ritual.

The applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC on

the allegation that after few days of marriage, she was subjected to

mental torture and her character was questioned by husband/applicant.

She was also tortured by her in-laws by not providing meal on time. On

01.03.2021 she left the matrimonial home and went to her paternal

home. During that period she lost her mother and since then she is

residing with her brother. Thereafter, applicant/wife filed an application

under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance as she is unable to

maintain herself whereas the applicant/husband is working as Data
3

Entry Operator and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month and he is also

receiving rent to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- and also he is living

agricultural land around 2 acres and plot ad-measuring 3000 square

feet from which he is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month and she prayed in

the application for maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month.

4. The applicant/husband marked his appearance before the learned

family Court and raised objection that after few months of marriage, her

behaviour changed and she used to quarrel on every trivial issues. He

further argued that applicant/wife had illicit relation with his younger

brother and when he objects about the said relationship, she used to

fight with him. She also threatens him to prosecute in false and frivolous

cases due to which he was under duress. She herself left the

matrimonial home. He is working as Data Entry Operator on Temporary

Basis and earns Rs. 17,131/-. He has no alternate source of income.

She used to live her life at her own will and left the matrimonial home

without any sufficient reason.

5. After appreciating the facts, learned Family Court has passed the

judgment and directed the applicant to pay maintenance to the tune of

Rs. 4,000/- per month to the applicant/wife vide order dated

06.11.2024. Hence these criminal revisions.

6. In CRR No. 1322, learned counsel for the applicant/husband submitted

that the family Court awarded the maintenance, which is a perverse

order in the eye of law. He further submitted that the learned family

Court has not considered the contention put forth by the

applicant/husband in his statement on an affidavit under Order 18 Rule

04 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 that he earns Rs. 17,131 per
4

month as he works as contractual employ and he has also submitted

the fact that the respondent has found doing adultery with younger

brother of the applicant which has been legally proved before the

Competent Court vide Order/Judgment/ decree dated 08.09.2023

passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge Family Court Raipur

and the family Court concerned has granted the Decree of Divorce in

favour of Husband.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband further submitted that the

learned Family Court passed the maintenance order without

considering the statutory provision of Section 125(4) that no wife shall

be entitled to receive interim maintenance from her husband.

Specifically, a wife cannot claim maintenance if she is living in adultery,

refuses to live with her husband without a sufficient reason, or if they are

living separately by mutual consent. He further submit that it was the

applicant/wife who left the house of the applicant/husband on her own

wish, her wife was living adultery with his younger brother and financial

condition of the applicant, these aspects were not considered by the

family Court. The order dated 06.11.2024 for enhancement to tune of

Rs. 4,000/- passed by the concerned family court may be set aside.

8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant-husband

placed his reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Shanthakumari v. Thimmegowda reported in 2023 SCC

OnLine Kar 66 and also in the case of Sanjivani Ramchandra

Kondalkar Vs. Ramchandra Bhimrao Kondalkar & Anr., in

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2016.

9. In CRR No. 58/2025, learned counsel for the applicant/wife submitted
5

that the maintenance amount must be awarded to Rs. 20,000/- as the

applicant/husband is earning handsome amount and he is having other

source of income. The applicant/wife is having no means of livelihood,

and the family Court allowed the application to the tune of Rs. 4000/- on

lesser side which is not just and proper. He further submitted that

applicant/wife is suffering since 2021 and the applicant/husband is not

paying maintenance amount which has been awarded to her by the

order of jurisdictional Court. The core issue and legislative intent of

Section 125 of CrPC is completely missing in the impugned order. He

further submitted that the learned family Court has only focused on the

salary of the applicant/husband and completely ignored the other

sources of income such as rent and income from agricultural activities.

Further, the only ground raised by applicant-husband before this Court

is with regard to Granting of Decree of Divorce in his favor on the basis

of findings recorded by the Family Court. The Family Court has held

that Wife has established physical/sexual relation with younger Brother

of Husband i.e. Oman Dewangan and hence she lived in adultery and

accordingly the Decree of Divorce was granted.

10.Learned counsel for the applicant-wife submitted that applicant –

husband wants to take the shelter of S. 125 (4) of CrPC which states as

under:

125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and
parents.

(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an [allowance for the
maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding, as the case may be,] [Substituted by Act 50 of
2001, Section 2 for “allowance” (w.e.f. 24-9-2001).] from her
husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if,
without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her
husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

6

11.Learned counsel for the applicant-wife stated that the word used in S.

125 (4) of CrPC is “if she is living in adultery i.e. the act of Adultery must

be present and the same must be continuous. The facts is admitted by

both the parties that they both lived under the same roof on 01.03.2021

for the last time (Para No. 3 of Application U/s. 125 of CrPC admitted

by Husband that she left on 01.03.2021). Husband also admits/pleaded

in Para No. 6 of Written Statement/Reply of S. 125 of CrPC Application

that she is living with her Brother and Sister-in-Law. This itself implies

by the admission & pleadings of the parties that she is living with her

Brother & Sister-in-Law and not living the adulterous life. There is fine

line difference between the phrases i.e. “Living in Adultery” and “Once

lived in Adultery” or “Once established physical relation with someone

twice or thrice”. It was not the Defense/case of applicant-husband that

She/Wife is claiming Maintenance while living in adultery it is his

defense stating that a Decree of Divorce is in his favor on the basis of

Extra Marital Affair of his Wife with his Younger Brother. Having extra

marital affair and living the adulterous life is completely different

parameters. Even if the same is accepted, the divorce was granted

stating that wife had extra marital affair with younger brother of

Husband and hence she lived the adulterous life. That does not entitled

her to claim maintenance from her husband as it is admitted in position

that wife, at the time of presentation of Application U/s. 125 of CrPC

was living with her Brother & Sister-in-Law. The learned Family Court

has not at all appreciated the fact that all the Witness of Divorce

proceedings was of Family members of Husband.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant-wife further submitted that so far as

amount of maintenance is concerned, the learned Family Court has not
7

at all appreciated the fact that there are blocks from where the Husband

is receiving the rent worth Rs. 70,000/. The father of the applicant-

husband has given rent to one shop on Main Road at Birgaon from

where he is receiving the rent of Rs. 15,000/-. There are agricultural

lands available in the name of father of applicant- husband. The

Applicant/Wife has filed the same before this Hon’ble Court with the

prayer to admit the same as the same is Revenue Documents which

are Public Documents and they are necessary for disposal of the instant

petition and which are also in admitted in position. Therefore he prays

for order of the family Court may be modified and allowed the

application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC in its

entirety.

13.In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant-wife is

relying upon the Judgments/Orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in

Cr.R. No. 672 of 2006, Order dated 26.08.2014 in the matter of “Shiv

Kumar Netam Vs. Meena Devi & Another” & Order dated

28.01.2019 passed in Cr.R./27/2018 passed in the matter of “Kamlesh

Vs. Parwati“. The same allegation was levelled against the wife in both

the cases and in the matter of Kamlesh (Supra), the Wife has admitted

the fact that she had lived with one Yashwant Soni in many place but

the same has not been considered as the legislative intent of S. 125 of

CrPC was missing in entire scenario as the same with the facts and

circumstances of the present case is concerned. The Hon’ble Court in

the case of Shiv Kumar Netam Vs. Meena Devi & Another” &

Order in Cr.R. No. 672 of 2006 has held as under:-

7.At this stage, it would be proper to notice certain
judicial decisions decided by the High Courts.

8

(7.1) The Calcutta High Court in case of Jatindra v.
Gouri Bala has held that the words “living in adultery”

connotes a course of adulterous conduct more or less
continuous
(7.2) The Bombay High Court in case of Rajani v.
Prabhakar while considering “is living in adultery”

employed in clause (i) of sub-Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (unamended) held as under:-

That for invoking the application of clause (i) of sub-
Section (1) of Section 13, it must be shown that the
period during which the spouse was living an
adulterous life was so related from the point of
proximity of time, to the filing of petition, that it could
reasonable be inferred that the petitioner had a fair
ground to believe that when the petition was filed, she
was living in adultery”

(7.3) The Madras High Court in case of Pattayee
Ammal Vs. Manickam Gounder and another while
considering the phase “is living in adultery” held as
under:-

“The word “is living in adultery” have been considered
in Section 488 Cri.P.C. Many High Courts have held
them to mean a continuous course of adulterous life
as distinguished from one or two lapses from virtue.
Living in adultery is wider than mere living as a
concubine or as a kept mistress. The word “is living”

cannot mean “was living”. It is true that it would not be
possible to lay down any hard and fast rule. Each
case must be decided upon its own facts.”

(8) The quintessence of all the judicial
pronouncements is to the effect that when the
husband challenges the claim of maintenance of his
wife, alleging that his wife is living in adultery, the
husband ought to begin his case and prove the
allegation of such adulterous life on the part of the
wife by letting in evidence adulterous conduct at of
her continued or about the time of the application and
then the wife against whom such a charge is made
out to given an opportunity to rebut such allegation.
The husband must prove the continuous adulterous
conduct on her (wife) part in order to refuse
maintenance to her under Section 125 (1) of the
Code.

(9) At this stage, it would be proper to notice the
evidence brought by the husband to prove the
allegation that the wife is living in adultery.
(10) (NAW-1)- Shiv Kumar has stated in his evidence
before the Court that non-applicant No.1 has started
living with Lakhan Lal at Bhilai Nagar as husband and
wife. His son Sudhir (NAW-2) has stated that he had
9

seen the non-applicant with the Lakhan Lal in his
house in the compromising position twice. Whereas,
Mukesh Kumar Markar (NAW-3), who is residing in
the same vicinity has said that non-applicant/wife is
staying with the Lakhan Lal for the last five years.
Rambharosa (NAW-4), who is father of the non-
applicant alleges that non-applicant is staying with the
Lakhan Lal for last two years.

(11) Thus, taking into consideration the plea of
applicant that the non-applicant No.1 is living in
adultery is absolutely vague and the evidence brought
by the appellant to this effect is also not very specific
to prove the continuous adulterous conduct on the
part of non-applicant No.1 as strong and
unimpeachable evidence is required to hold that non-
applicant No.1 “is living in adultery” within the
meaning of Section 125 (4) of the Code and,
therefore, the Family Court is absolutely justified in
passing the order granting maintenance to the non-
applicant No.1.

(12) As a fall out and the consequence of the
aforesaid discussion, the criminal revision is held to
be devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

14. He relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter

of Kamlesh Vs. Parwati in Cr.R. No. 27 of 2018 has held as under:-

The third ground taken by the husband was that the
wife is living in of Chhattisgarh. therefore, she is not
entitled to get any maintenanceThe wife has admitted
the fact that she made a report against the husband
and his family members on the basis of which a case
asuu under Section 498A of the IPC was prosecuted in
which her statement was recorded which is Ex.P13.
She has also admitted the fact that she also made a
statement (Ex.P33). From bare perusal of her
statements (Ex.P13 and P33), it is clear that the wife
has admitted the fact that she had lived with one
Yashwant Soni at Bilaspur, Korba and Mungeli for a
total period of about 6 to 7 months. This fact is
admitted by her in the present case also. She has also
admitted that she had also carried a pregnancy from
Yashwant Soni during living with him. She has
categorically denied that she is still in relation with
Yashwant Soni. From her present statement and her
previous statements (Ex.P13 and P33), it is only
established that in the year 2000 she had led an
adulterous life with Yashwant Soni. At present, she is
leading an adulterous life, there is no evidence on
record to establish the same.

10

In 1987 CH.L.J. 655 (Smt. Rachita Rout v. Basanta
Kumar Rout), it was observed by the Orissa High Court
in paragraph 6 as under:

“6. The expression “if she is living in adultery”

undoubtedly connotes a course of adulterous conduct
more or less continuous. An occasional lapse would
not be a sufficient reason for refusing maintenance
within the ambit of sub-s. (4). Therefore, a Magistrate
has to probe and find out whether at or about the time
of the application, there has been an adulterous
conduct on the part of the wife. Further, there must be
clear proof of adultery. A suspicion nurtured by the
adultery. Since sub-s. (4) is in the nature of an
exception to the main section, it is for the husband
claiming protection under the said provision to show
that the said sub-section is applicable, that is to say,
the husband must establish that the wife is living in
adultery. Within the aforesaid parameter, let me now
examine whether the conclusion of the learned
Magistrate in this regard can be sustained in law or
not.

13. In AIR 2009 (NOC) 212 (Gauhati) (Md. Abdul
Sattar v. The State of Assam), it was observed thus:

“A bare reading of the provisions of Section 125(4)
makes it more transparent that a husband has no
obligation to maintain his wife if she is living in
adultery. The expression “if she is living in adultery”

occurring in S. 125(4) conveys present continuous
tense. That is to say, a wife disentitles herself from
receiving maintenance from her husband only during
the period, when she lives in adultery. When she does
not live in adultery, or when she ceases to live in
adultery, even if she had lived in adultery in the past,
the husband cannot refuse to maintain her on the
ground that she had, in the past, lived in adultery.
When the wife ceases to live in adultery, the husband
cannot say that since she had lived in an adulterous
relation with a man in the past, she is not entitled to
receive maintenance from her husband, even though
she has ceased to live in adultery. In the case at hand,
even if the second party had lived in adultery, the fact
remains that according to the evidence on record, she
has been presently living, admittedly, with her parents
and has no surviving ties with her abductor or
paramour, as the case may be. In such circumstances,
the present petitioner, as husband of the opposite
party, was liable to maintain her, particularly when the
opposite party does not admittedly, have any
independent source of livelihood and she is dependent
for her sustenance on her parents.”

In the case in hand also, it is only established that in
the year 2000, the wife was leading an adulterous life
11

with Yashwant Soni, but at the time of decision of the
application under Section 125 of the t of Chhattisgarh
sband did not take this ground. At the time of deciding
the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. filed
by the wife also, the husband did not raise this ground.
After passing aspor of the order on the application
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, the wife is leading an
adulterous life, there is no evidence on record to this
effect. Therefore, she is still entitled to get maintenance
from the husband.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the husband
is suffering from epilepsy and/or mental disorder, there
is no evidence on record to this effect. Due to suffering
from a disease he is unable to work, there is also no
evidence on record to this effect. The husband has
been unable to establish that the wife has given her
house on rent and is getting rent of Rs. 10,000/- per
month from that house. The wife is still leading an
adulterous life is also not established by the husband.
Therefore, no change is established in the
circumstances as a result of which the maintenance
granted to the wife could be reduced.

16. Consequently, Criminal Revision No.27 of 2018
preferred by the husband is dismissed. Criminal
Revision No.379 of 2018 moved by the wife is allowed
and the impugned order dated 30.11.2017 which
relates to reduction of monthly maintenance of the wife
from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,000/- is set aside.

17. Record of the Court below be sent back along with
a copy of this Corder forthwith for information and
necessary compliance.

15.I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with

utmost circumspection.

16. As far as factual matrix of the judgments relied by the learned counsel

for applicant-wife namely Shiv Kumar Netam and Kamlesh (supra) is

concerned, facts of these cases are different to present case as there

was no decree of divorce in both the cases.

17.In the instant case, the applicant-husband has filed the divorced

petitioner under the Hindu Marriage Act on 02.03.2021 and the divorce

was granted under the Hindu Marriage Act by the Competent Court of
12

Law on 08.09.2023 on the ground of adultery. For ready reference,

relevant portion of order/decree is being reproduced hereinunder:-

vfHkys[k esa miyC/k lk{; dh mijksDrkuqlkj fd;s x;s foospu

ls vkosnd ;g rF; izekf.kr djus esa lQy jgk gS fd

vukosfndk Jherh lqeu nsokaxu] vkseu nsokaxu ds lkFk tkjrk

dh n’kk esa jg jgh FkhA QyLo:i fuEuk’k; dh fu.kZ; ,oa

fMdzh ?kksf”kr dh tkrh gS

18.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanthakumari vs.

Thimmegowda reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 66 has held as

under:-

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would
contend that the petitioner is a legally wedded wife of
respondent and it is the duty of husband to maintain
his wife. It is asserted that since he is having an illicit
relationship with his relative, domestic violence is
required to be inferred. Hence, he would contend that
petition needs to be allowed.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
would contend that the marriage was dissolved by the
Competent Court by granting a decree in M.C. No.
53/2016 on the ground of adultery as well as cruelty.

He would also contend that evidence disclose that the
petitioner had eloped with neighbor and all along, she
refused to stay with her husband and showed her
interest to stay with her paramour, which clearly
discloses her mental state of mind. Hence, he would
contend though she is legally wedded wife, looking to
her conduct having illicit relationship, she is not
entitled for any maintenance. He would also contend
that since now divorce has been granted, the question
of granting a residential order or protection order does
not arise at all.

9. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, it is evident that there is no serious dispute of
the fact that the petitioner was the wife of the
respondent. She has filed a petition under Section 12
of the D.V. Act, claiming various reliefs. However, it is
the specific contention of the respondent husband is
that the petitioner has eloped with a neighbor by name
Mahesh and he was compelled to lodge a
complainant. In this context, the respondent has
placed reliance on Ex.R1 statement given by the
13

petitioner before the police and Ex.R2 is the
complainant lodged by the husband. Ex.R3 is the
endorsement issued by the police to the respondent,
wherein they have specifically stated that the wife has
refused to join the husband and she preferred to stay
with her paramour Mahesh.

10. Ex.R1, R2 & R 3 are not at all challenged by the
revision petitioner. Further, it is also submitted that, on
the same ground, now the divorce has been granted
by the family Court and this statement is also not
challenged. The respondent was got examined himself
as RW1 and he has reiterated the allegation regarding
the petitioner being eloping with Mahesh. RW2 is the
neighbor and he has also deposed to this fact. RW3 is
the brother of the petitioner and he has specifically
asserted that the respondent never subjected the
petitioner to ill-treatment demanding dowry. He has
also asserted that his sister-petitioner is staying along
with Mahesh and they did conduct the panchayat and
initially, the husband and wife were residing together,
but again, she joined Mahesh. Though in the cross-
examination it is suggested that petitioner is not having
any income to maintain herself
but this witness specifically asserted that she is
staying with Mahesh and Mahesh is taking care of her
maintenance. Apart from that, the evidence of
Hanumantha-RW3 is supported by the son of the
parties by name Punith Kumar, who is examined as
RW4. He has also specifically deposed regarding his
mother eloping with Mahesh. Though he was cross-
examined, nothing was elicited. Mahesh was also
examined as RW5 by obtaining summons, but he has
turned hostile and quite natural, which is expected.
The oral and documentary evidence produced clearly
establish that the petitioner is not honest towards her
husband and she has got extramarital affairs with
neighbor Mahesh and all along, she asserted that she
used to stay with him. When the petitioner is staying in
adultery, the question of she claiming maintenance
does not arise at all. The contention of the petitioner
that the petitioner is a legally wedded wife and entitled
for maintenance cannot be accepted in view of the
conduct of the petitioner, who is not honest and is
leading adulterous life.

11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has
also invited the attention of the admission given by
RW1 regarding he is having illicit relationship with
daughter of his sister-in-law. Though that aspect has
been disputed, since the petitioner is claiming
maintenance, she must prove that she is honest and
when she herself is not honest, she cannot pin-point
her fingers towards her husband.

14

12. The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate
any of these aspects and in a mechanical way,
awarded the maintenance and compensation, which is
a perverse order. The learned Sessions judge has re-
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and
has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner in view of
the fact that she was leading an adulterous life.
Considering there facts and circumstances no illegality
or perversity is found in the order of learned Sessions
Judge so as to call for interference by this Court.
Hence, revision petition being devoid of any merits,
does not survive for consideration and accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following: The revision petition
stands dismissed.

19.Sub- Section 4 of Section 125 of the CrPC provides that if a woman

lives in adultery, whose marriage is still subsisting, she is not entitled for

maintenance from her husband. Suppose, a decree for divorce is

granted on the ground of her living in adultery, can it be said that the

said disqualification of which she was suffering from all along, during

the subsistence of the marriage, will cease to exist, because of the

decree for divorce?. The prudent answer to this question shall be an

emphatic – “No”. The decree obtained by the husband for divorce on

proving the adulterous life of the wife cannot give a license to her to

continue to live in illicit relationship and to get her right to claim

maintenance revived. Therefore, I conclude that a divorced wife, who

lives in adultery, viz., living in illicit relationship with man other than her

former husband is disqualified from claiming maintenance, under

Section 125 of the Code.

20.If once the decree for divorce is granted on the ground of adultery, such

finding is relevant for deciding the issue of adultery in the present case.

The decree is a decree passed on proof of the claim made by means of

sufficient evidence which has not been challenged by the aggrieved
15

party.

21.Considering the aforesaid legal proposition of law and considering the

facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the decree for divorce

granted by the family Court in favour of the applicant-husband is

sufficient proof that the applicant-wife was living in adultery. When once

such a decree is in force, it is not possible for this Court to take a

different view contrary to the decree granted by the Civil court.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the decree granted

by the Family Court clearly goes to prove that the applicant-wfie is living

in adultery and thus, applicant-wife suffers from the disqualification to

claim maintenance from the petitioner.

22.As such, the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Second

Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Miscellaneous

Criminal Case No. 637/2024 is set aside / quashed. The criminal

revision i.e. CRR No. 1322/2024 filed by the applicant-husband is

allowed. Consequently, the criminal revision i.e. CRR No. 58/2025 filed

by the applicant-wife is dismissed.

23.Office is directed to send the records along with a certified copy of this

Order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and

compliance forthwith.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge

Jyoti
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
Date:

2025.05.14
12:16:48
+0530