S. B. Pd. Singh, J. – In these bunch of cases, the issues are common and interrelated, as such, all have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The reliefs sought by the appellant/petitioner are as under: –

2. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 307 of 2015 (Sangita Kumari vs. Surendra Kumar Himansu)

“That instant appeal is being preferred against the decree of dissolution of marriage dated 08.05.2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad in Matrimonial Case No. 66/2023 whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad has been pleased to decree the Matrimonial Suit No. 66/2023 in favour of plaintiff (Respondent here) without considering the legal aspects and the reply filed by the appellant.”

3. Criminal Revision No. 584 of 2015(Sangita Kumari vs. Surendra Kumar Himansu)

“That this revision application is being filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad in Maintenance Case No. 81 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad has been pleased to allow the maintenance only Rs. 5000/- per month whereas demand of petitioner is Rs. 20,000/- per month for her livelihood.”

4. Cr. Revision No. 618 of 2015 (Surendra Kumar Himanshu vs. The State of Bihar & Ors)

“That the revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.05.2015 passed by learned Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad in Maintenance Case No. 81/2014 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by opposite party no. 2 whereby and whereunder learned Court has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay Rs. 5000/- as maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 on or before 15th of each successive month from the date of the order and in default to pay the same, the opposite party no. 2 may move before the court to get the same through the process of law.”

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 307 of 2015

5. Heard the parties.

6. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 impugning the judgment dated 08.05.2015 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad in Matrimonial Case No. 66 of 2013, whereby the matrimonial suit, preferred by the respondent-husband, for a decree of divorce, on dissolution of marriage, has been allowed.

7. The case of the respondent-husband as per petition filed before the Family Court is that the marriage of the respondent-husband with appellant-wife was solemnized on 11.07.2000 as per Hindu Rights and Customs and after marriage, they lived together as husband and wife for about three months. After marriage, the respondent-husband came to know that the appellant-wife was in close proximity with his co-villager who has been made party as respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 always used to come to the house of the respondent-husband and he never objected as he considered it as a social visit. One day, when the respondent-husband returned to his home, he found the appellant-wife and respondent No. 2 inside the house with the outer door bolted from inside. The respondent-husband tried his best to convince his wife (appellant) not to indulge with respondent No. 2 but his advice was not followed by the appellant-wife. The respondent-husband also advised respondent No. 2 not to indulge with the appellant-wife but he also did not follow his advice. On 27.11.2012, when the respondent-husband returned back from the market, he found his bed-room locked from inside. On alarm raised, the appellant-wife and respondent No. 2 came outside the room in a very ashamed condition. The respondent-husband caught the appellant-wife and respondent No. 2 red handed living in adultery. Thereafter, the appellant-wife filed Complaint Case No. 1055 of 2012 on 09.01.2013 which was transmitted to Mahila P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013 on 04.02.2013 under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent-husband and her other in-laws family membe