Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Jyoti Bai Sahu vs Shri Basori Lal Sahu on 19 November, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59126
1 CRR-4811-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 19 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4811 of 2023
SMT. JYOTI BAI SAHU
Versus
SHRI BASORI LAL SAHU
Appearance:
Ms. Poonam Daharwal - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Pramod Kumar Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
Registry has reported that Cr.R No. 2763/2021 of co-accused is pending;
however, on perusal of record it is seen that Cr.R No. 2763/2021 - Basorilal Sahu
v. Smt. Jyoti Bai Sahu was disposed of on 10 th May, 2022 by the Hon'ble Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court. The matter was in relation to Section 125 Cr. P.C
and Revision was dismissed.
2. Counsel for respondent Basorilal also confirms this order.
3. It is submitted that original proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C is
pending and interim maintenance application was dismissed by the concerned
Family Court at Jabalpur on 2.6.2022.
4. This case is listed today for admission and I.A No. 24547/2023, an
application for condonation of delay and I.A No. 30764/2023 an application for
stay of proceeding pending under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court,
Jabalpur.
5. At the outset, the main prayer of the learned counsel is that earlier trial
Judge was not well for 8 to 9 months then she was not well for 8 to 9 months;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59126
2 CRR-4811-2023
therefore, this Revision could be filed with application for condonation of delay. It
is submitted that there is a delay of 397 days.
6. Learned counsel pointed out decision of this Court in the case of
Rajkumar Raghuvanshi (Lakhera) v. Radha Lakhera and others judgment dated
18.9.2018 in First Appeal No. 159/2014 to argue that in Sahu community, which
comes under community, no formal decree of divorce is required from the Court
and they can get the divorce as per their community practices. But, on perusal of
this judgment, it is seen that in this case the Family Court had granted
maintenance and maintenance order was challenged by the husband and when the
Court asked for paternity test then the husband declined. Therefore, in the facts
and circumstances of the case the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court did not interfere
in the order.
7. Another judgment relied upon by the counsel for applicant is in Gurdit
Singh v. Ms. Angrez Kaur @ GEJ Kaur @ Malan and others [(1968) AIR (SC)
142], which pertains to Evidence Act. In this case it is mentioned that under
Section 13 of Evidence Act, custom proof of entries in Riwaj-i-am can be
considered as evidence. It is mentioned in the judgment that Riwaj-i-am is a
public record prepared by a public officer in discharge of his duties and under
Government rules that it is clearly admissible in evidence to prove the facts
entered there on subject to rebuttal and that the statement there in may be accepted
even if unsupported by instances. In this judgment mention has been made as
regards examination of witness on behalf of appellant. Thus, it is clear that two
things are required; first that custom is entered in a document of Riwaj-i-am and
evidence is given and in this judgment it is also held that rebuttal judgment can be
given depending upon the case and fact of each case.
8. It is fairly admitted by learned counsel for the applicant that till date no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59126
3 CRR-4811-2023
evidence has been recorded by the Court of either party.
9. On perusal of the order passed by learned Family Court, it is seen that the
applicant lady had married earlier and without getting a formal divorce from her
husband she had married the respondent. It is also mentioned that non-applicant is
suffering from mental disease and paralysis and is under treatment. It is also
mentioned that the applicant wants to kill the non-applicant in a conspiracy with
her sister and brother-in-law by giving him poison. It is also mentioned that a
Panchayat was called in which the claimant herein admitted on affidavit that she is
giving DHATURA to her husband by mixing it in the food. When this Court
wanted to know what is the reality, she submits that it was falsely obtained by the
non-applicant under duress by pressurizing and making false promises. Therefore,
it is as clear as day light that no interim maintenance can be granted in this case
unless evidence of both parties are recorded and case is decided on merit.
Therefore, no case is made out to interfere with the interim order.
10. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Likewise the
instant lacking merit is also dismissed. Let both the parties to fight their case
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VKT
