HIOHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Criminal Revision No.43 of 2011 Applicant Suni! Kumar Jangdey, agad about 39 yeare, S/o Shri Manmohan Jangdey, Occupation-Chhattisgarh Police Constable, R/o Quarter No.52/99, Poiice Colony, Poiics Station-Torwa, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) permanent address Village-Parsadih, Police Station-Bilaigarh, District- Raipur (C.G.) Non-applicants Vefsus 1. Smt.Manju Jangdey, W/o Shri Sunil Kumar Jangdey, aged about 31 years. 2. Akshat Kumar, S/o Shri Suni! Kumar Jangdey, aged about 09 years, minor ' through legal guardian Smt.Manju Jangdey, W/o Shri Suni! Kumar Jangdey, Both R/o through Bhushan Singh Madhukar, Kadhukar Para, Village- Pachpsdi, Police Station-Masturi, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) (Criminal Revision under Section 19(4) ofthe Famiiy Courts Act read with Section 397 & 401 ofthe Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Mr.Bharat Rajput, counsei for the applteant. Mr.Akhtar Hussain, counsel for the non-applicants. Ofy3ER(ORAL) (Passed on 4 March, 2011) 1. By this revision, the appiicant has challengsd legatity and propriety of ths order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Biiaspur tn Criminal MJ.C.No.79/2010, whereby the Judge, Family Court has awarcied maintenance of ?2500/- per month to non-appiicant No.1 and ?1500/- per month to non-applteant No.2 i.e., total T4000/- per month against the appiicant. 2. As per claim of the present appticant, non-applicant No.1 is iiving in aduitery and he is not father of non-apptteant No.2. He has flled documents before the Judge, Famiiy Court, but the Judge, Family Court has not taken into consideration the aforesaid documents. ^^^—.s^ •f?-'' ?'.. ''''?.'-. ff'""'" '%. "^•i.'i.'1'''' 'SS 3 ../ s 'vsss<s'^' '''^..^'' iB=5i3R.'3^ -2-- 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perussd tt©order impugned and other documents filed on behalf ofthe applicant. 4. Learned counsei for the appficant submits that the present applicant has filsd detailed documents relating to factum of adultery of non-applicant No.1 before the Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, he was not represanted by ceunsel before the Famiiy Court and he was not weil veree about the ruie of evidence. Learned counsel farther submits that the Family Court was urKier obligation to provide compiete opportunity of hearing and adduce e evidence to the parties not represented by counsel. Wtthout considering ths aforesaid documents, the Famiiy Court has committsd iiiegality. 5. On the other hand, iearned counsel for the non-appiicants opposes the revision and submits that the Family Court has provided complete opportunity of hearing to the parties. Ths applicant was under obfigation to prove his documents by adducing cogsnt evidence, but he himssif has not proved any documents. The Famiiy Court has not committed any Mi^ality in awarding maintsnance to the non-applicants. * ,. 6. Record of the Family Court reveals that the present applicant has filed huge number of documents in support of factum of aduttery. He has fiied some statements of the witnesses recorded during the courss of trial by other Courts. Both the parties were not representing by counssls before the Famify Court. "- 7. Definitely, the Famity Court was under oMigation to prowde comptete opportun'rty of hearing to the parties and in case of direct conflict between the parties, the Court is also under obligation to provide opportunity of adducing such evidence relating to specific defence or facts, but in the present case documents filed on behalf of the applicant has not been proved and has not been taken into consideration by the Family Court. 8. Considering the speciflc defencs, which may, if faiis, would be the ground for claim of maintenance. Order impugned without providing cwnpiete op|»rtunityof hearing is not susteinabie under the law. 9. Consequently, the rsvision is atlowed and order impugned is hereby set aside. Case is remitted backto the Famiiy Court for providing opportunity of adducing evidence relating to the documents filed on behalf of the applicant and aiso to the non-applicants and decide the matter afresh. Parties are directed to present before the Family Court on 4.4.2011. T.P. Sharma Judge (^ ^